,.--i      ■     :: 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  '^^ 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agnew  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


/03/( 


OPEN    COMMUNION. 


BY 


REV.  L.  ROSSER,  A.M. 


The  love  of  truth  Is  natural  to  man,  and  strong  in  every  well-disposed  mind. 
But  it  may  be  overborne  by  party  zeal,  by  vanity,  by  the  desire  of  victory,  or  even 
by  laziness.  "When  it  is  superior  to  these,  it  is  a  manly  virtue,  and  requires  the 
«xerciso  of  industry,  fortitude,  self-denial,  candor,  and  openness  to  conviction. 

Eeid. 


mCHMOXD,   VA.t 
PUBLISHED  BY  THE   AUTHOR. 

1858. 


^ 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1858,  by 

L.  ROSSER, 

in  tho  Clerk's  Office  of  the  Di?itrict  Coiu-t  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Yiroinia. 


STEREOTTPET)   BY   L.    JOHNSON   &   CO. 
PHILADELPHIA. 


PraXTED  BY  SMITH  &  PETERS, 

Trauklin  Buildings,  Sixth  Street,  below  Arch, 

PhUadelphitt. 


PEEFACE. 


Men's  opinions  on  matters  that  are  non-essential 
are  as  various  as  tlieir  characters.  Thus,  subjects 
which  appear  to  one  mind  self-evident  and  of 
indispensable  importance  appear  to  another  sur- 
rounded with  insuperable  difficulties  and  of  minor 
importance.  Reasoning  regarded  by  one  mind  as 
conclusive  and  irresistible  is  considered  by  an- 
other as  defective,  inconsistent,  and  unsatisfactory. 
Nevertheless,  there  are  certain  fundamental  doc- 
trines on  which  all  evangelical  churches  agree ;  and 
any  one  who  should  deny  these  would  be  deemed 
by  common  consent  an  infidel  or  a  heretic.  The 
Baptists  differ  from  other  evangelical  churches 
mainly  on  matters  merely  non-essential,  and,  as 
will  be  found  in  this  treatise,  concede  to  them  all 
that  is  truly  essential  to  salvation.  They  assume 
that  baptism  is  indispensably  prerequisite  to  sacra- 
mental communion,  and  that  immersion  is  essential 
to  baptism.  Let  it  be  carefully  observed  that  in 
this  treatise  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  infant  bap- 
tism, nor  with  the  7node  of  baptism ;  for  if  baptism 
is  not  made  in  the  Scriptures  indispensably  pre- 
requisite to  sacramental  communion,  it  is  clear 

8 


4  PREFACE. 

that  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism  do  not  enter 
into  the  discussion.  Whether  therefore  the  Bap- 
tists are  right  or  wrong  as  to  the  mode  and  sub- 
jects of  baptism  is  immateriah  I  hope  to  show 
that  all  true  believers  have  a  right  to  sacramental 
communion  with  all  the  evangelical  churches  in 
the  world. 

In  the  greater  part  of  this  treatise  I  have  em- 
ployed weapons  furnished  by  the  Baptists  them- 
selves ;  and  particular  attention  is  invited  to  the 
chapter  on  Baptist  concessions.  I  have  had  no 
wish  to  invent  new  doctrines  or  go  beyond  the 
plain  meaning  and  evident  spirit  of  the  Scriptures. 
I  have  had  special  regard  to  the  wants  of  the  age,  and 
have  endeavored  to  adapt  the  treatment  of  the  subject 
to  the  circumstances  of  the  times^ — using  no  argu- 
ments I  considered  unfair,  doubtful,  or  uncertain, 
governed  not  so  much  by  their  number  as  their 
force  and  sufficiency,  and  omitting,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  consideration  of  no  material  argument 
for  restricted  communion  that  has  fallen  under  my 
notice. 

With  a  solemn  conviction  that "  God  shall  bring 
every  work  into  judgment,  with  every  secret  thing, 
whether  it  be  good  or  whether  it  be  evil,"  and 
with  an  humble  confidence  in  his  providence,  I 
contoiit  this  volume  to  the  public. 

L.  R. 

Norfolk  City,  Va.,  March  25,  1856. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAQE 

Preface 3 

CHAPTER  I. 
Argument  for  Open  Communion  from  the  Unity  of  the  Church. ...„       7 

CHAPTER  11. 
Reply  to  the  Argument  that  Baptism  is  prerequisite  to  Sacramental 

Communion ,....     22 

CHAPTER  III. 
Involuntary  Neglect  of  Baptism  no  bar  to  Sacramental  Communion     42 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Involuntary  Xeglcct  of  Baptism  no  bar  to  Sacramental  Communion 

(continued) 52 

CHAPTER  V. 
Concessions  of  the  Baptists 59 

CHAPTER  YL 
Concessions  of  the  Baptists  (continued) 87 

CHAPTER  YII. 
Concessions  of  the  Baptists  (continued) 92 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Unfairness  of  the  Baptists 103 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Restricted  Communion  a  Modern  Invention 134 

1*  5 


6  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  X.  PAQi 

Coramunion  confined  to  Memberfhip  in  the  Baptist  Church 152 

CnAPTER  XI. 
Restricted  Communion  unreasonable 164 

CHAPTER  XII. 
Consequence?  of  Restricted  Communion 170 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
Advantages  of  Open  Communion 180 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Objections  to  Open  Communion  considered 182 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Eminent  Baptists  in  favor  of  Open  Communion 208 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Appeal  to  Strict-Comraauion  Baptists 236 


OPEN  COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  I. 


ARGUMENT    FOR    OPEN    COMMUNION    FROM    THE    UNITY    OF 
THE   CHURCH. 

The  chief  argument  for  open  communion  may  be  drawn 
from  the  spiriiual  unity  of  the  church,  which  consists  prin- 
cipally in  two  things, — namely,  a  common  faith  and  bro- 
therly love. 

1.  A  common  faith.  This  is  a  rallying-point  of  union, 
and  embraces  a  few  great  fundamental  principles,  which  are 
always  and  everywhere  the  same,  and  are  vital  to  evangelical 
religion.  A  sound  common  faith  forms  the  doctrinal  bond 
of  union  of  all  the  churches  of  Christ  over  the  whole  world, 
in  all  time,  and  is  the  basis  of  their  communion  and  recipro- 
cation of  brotherly  love  and  enjoyment  of  Christian  pri- 
vileges. Every  man  that  has  saving  faith  has  the  seal  of 
God  on  his  heart,  which  is  inconceivably  of  more  import- 
ance than  any  association  of  outward  splendor  or  visible 
unity  can  be.  To  him  belongs  the  spirit  and  the  truth,  the 
promises  and  the  graces,  the  privileges  and  the  advantages, 
of  the  gospel,  because  he  belongs  to  God,     He  is  united  in 


8  ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    UNITY 


soul  to  Christ,  and  to  his  spiritual  church,  in  all  the  world, 
in  all  time,  and  in  heaven ;  and  so '  long  as  he  holds  this 
union  he  is  inaccessible  to  all  outward  disturbing  causes,  and 
to  death  itself, — like  the  silent,  moveless,  deep  bosom  of  the 
sea,  that  cannot  be  disquieted  by  the  winds  and  waves  that 
agitate  its  surface,  or  like  the  high,  blue  expanse  of  hea- 
ven, with  its  countless  sparkling  worlds,  blending  their  pure 
radiance,  revolving  and  unchangeable,  in  an  eternal  calm 
above  the  clouds  and  thunders  and  jostlings  of  the  earth 
below.  The  mistakes,  misunderstandings,  controversies, 
and  schisms  of  the  visible  church  do  not  dissolve  the  bonds 
that  bind  him  to  the  spiritual  church,  and  cannot  do  it  so 
long  as  his  "life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God.'' 

The  spiritual  church  of  Christ,  consisting  in  the  invisible 
association  of  all  who  are  united  by  the  bonds  of  true  faith, 
is  scattered  through  the  world,  and  is  anterior  to  the  formal 
constitution  of  the  visible  church.  And  hence  every  mem- 
ber of  the  spiritual  church,  by  virtue  of  his  unipn  with  it, 
is  already  in  spiritual  union  and  communion  with  the  visible 
church,  and  has  a  right  to  the  sacraments  of  the  visible 
church.  No  power  on  earth,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  can  in- 
validate this  right,  though,  in  any  case,  the  privilege  of  re- 
ceiving the  sacraments  be  violently  or  conventionally  denied. 
The  question  of  antecedence  in  receiving  the  sacraments,  as 
we  shall  see,  is  a  mere  conceit.  The  right  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  not  founded  upon  baptism,  but  upon  a  spiritual 
nature,  for  a  spiritual  nature  is  entitled  to  both  sacraments 
equally,  without  involving  any  formal  and  necessary  ante- 
cedence in  the  observance  of  them.  It  is  usurpation  to 
deny  any  true  believer  either  baptism  or  the  communion. 
It  is  also  usurpation  to  deny  a  true  believer  the  communion 
merely  because  he  has  not  been  baptized.  The  Baptists 
abhor  the  arrogance  of  those  who  assert  that  there  are  no 
true   Christians  in  any  ofher  church   hvt  theirs :    let  the 


OF   THE    CHURCH.  9 


Baptist  Church,  then,  conform  her  regulations  to  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

All  true  churches  hold  the  same  right  to  the  sacraments, 
— namely,  by  the  grant  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  hence 
the  members  of  one  true  church  have  the  very  same  right 
to  the  table  of  the  Lord  as  the  members  of  all  other  true 
churches.  No  particular  church  can  invalidate  a  right  be- 
stowed by  Christ  himself  upon  all  true  churches  in  com- 
mon. What  Christ  has  established  for  the  common  use  of 
all  his  members  is  the  common  right  of  all. 

It  is  the  duty  of  all  true  churches  to  observe  the  sacra- 
ments; for  no  church  can  be  a  true  church  which  wilfully 
omits  the  sacraments.  What  is  lawful  and  commanded  in 
one  true  church  cannot  be  unlawful  and  forbidden  in 
another  true  church,  unless  it  be  assumed  that  the  same 
duty  which  is  binding  upon  all  true  churches  respectively 
cannot  be  discharged  in  one  true  church  as  well  as  in  an- 
other,— which  is  absurd ;  or  unless  it  be  assumed  that  what 
is  acceptable  and  honorable  in  the  individual  members  of 
one  true  church  is  unacceptable  and  dishonorable  when 
performed  by  them  in  another  true  church, — which  is  also 
absurd.  Fundamental  evangelical  laws  govern  every  true 
church;  and  no  particular  church  can  raise  a  valid  exception 
to  these  laws.  A  mere  subdivision  of  Christ's  church,  or- 
ganized under  certain  conventional  regulations,  can  never 
set  aside  or  modify  the  authority  of  these  general  laws,  or 
invalidate  the  character  and  rights  of  the  members  of  any 
true  church  of  Christ.  The  divine  law  requires  the  evidence 
of  Christian  character  as  a  qualification  for  communion;  and 
no  particular  church  can  demand  more.  To  demand  more 
is  to  corrupt  the  institutions  of  Christ  and  substitute  the 
will  of  man  for  the  authority  of  God. 

The  church  of  God,  we  repeat,  is  one,  in  all  ages  of  time 
and  in  all  parts  of  the  world.     "  As  the  body  is  one,  and  hath 


10  ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  UNITY 


many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  that  one  body,  being 
many,  are  one  body;  so  also  is  Christ.  For  by  one  spirit 
are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free;  and  have  been  all 
made  to  drink  into  one  spirit.  For  the  body  is  not  one 
member,  but  many."  (1  Cor.  xii.  12-14.)  Neither  variety 
nor  multitude  is  any  impediment  to  unity  where  the  life  of 
Christ,  the  head  of  the  church,  pervades  all,  both  individual 
members  and  individual  churches.  The  Spirit  of  Christ,  as 
the  central  source  of  life,  is  the  same  in  all  the  churches  of 
Christ,  and  consequently  they  have  all  an  equal  right  to  the 
sacraments  of  Christ;  the  claim  of  one  to  the  sacraments 
can  no  more  be  invalidated  than  the  claim  of  another, — the 
children  of  God  all  having  the  same  right  to  a  seat  at  his 
table,  whenever  and  by  whichsoever  of  his  churches  it  may 
be  spread ;  and  no  church  of  Christ  can  be  denied  admission 
to  his  table  without  grieving  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  who  pre- 
sides in  the  church  so  rejected.  It  seems  that  some  in  the 
Corinthian  church  arrogated  to  themselves  a  peculiar  pre- 
eminence and  sanctity,  because  they  were  endued  with 
superior  gifts ;  and  this  vain-glorious  temper  the  apostle 
severely  reproves,  and  demonstrates  to  be  unreasonable  and 
invasive  of  the  unity  of  the  church;  since  they  were  all 
one  body  and  derived  their  gifts  from  the  same  Spirit.  So, 
when  the  Baptists  assume  the  exclusive  right  to  administer 
the  sacraments,. by  giving  an  undue  importance  to  a  pecu- 
liar form  of  baptism,  they  involve  themselves  in  the  very 
error  which  the  apostle  condemns.  The  evil  which  he 
wished  to  cure  in  the  Corinthian  church,  and  anticipate  in 
all  ages  of  the  church,  is  a  party  feeling,  which,  wherever 
it  exists,  must  disturb  the  unity  and  interrupt  the  inter- 
communion of  the  churches.  He  enjoins  mutual  co-opera- 
tion, and  remonstrates  against  a  schismatic  spirit :  ^'  that 
there  be  no  schism  in  the  body."     He  shows  that  the  very 


OP    THE   CHURCH.  11 


constitution  of  tlie  church  includes  a  communion  of  inte- 
rests,— that  individual  members  should  cherish  a  sym- 
pathy of  feeling  toward  each  other, — and  that  they  should 
practise  a  reciprocation  of  benefits  :  "  that  the  members 
should  have  the  same  care  one  for  another,  and  whether  one 
member  suffer,  that  all  the  members  suffer  with  it,  or  one 
member  be  honored,  all  the  members  rejoice  with  it/'  (1 
Cor.  xii.  25-26.)  How  forcibly  this  illustrates  the  unity 
of  the  church,  and  exemplifies  the  intimate  communion  of 
all  true  believers,  must  appear  to  every  impartial  reader : — 
"  Now  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  particular." 
(v.  27.)  These  certain  and  indisputable  principles  were  not 
only  particularly  applicable  to  the  Corinthian  church,  but 
they  are  general,  and  so  are  applicable  to  the  vital  relations 
which  all  true  churches  individually  sustain  to  the  unity 
of  the  whole  church.  For  one  church,  therefore,  to  disown 
other  churches,  is  to  disown  the  members  of  Christ's  body 
and  sever  the  bonds  of  Christian  communion. 

The  apostle  proceeds  further  with  the  argument.  The 
nature  of  the  Christian  church  is  such  that,  provided  its 
doctrines  and  institutions  be  substantially  and  practically 
maintained,  non-essential  diversity  of  opinions,  habits, 
customs,  manners,  condition,  and  government  should  not 
disturb  the  unity  of  the  church  or  prevent  Christian  com- 
munion. "  By  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  bond  or  free,"  &c.  God  is  ^'  no 
respecter  of  persons,"  and  Jesus  Christ  "  tasted  death  for 
every  man;"  and  he  designs  to  gather  his  church  from  "all 
nations;"  and,  in  accomplishing  this  merciful  plan,  non- 
essential, circumstantial  matters  weigh  nothing  in  his  judg- 
ment. Persecution,  intolerance,  bigotry,  ecclesiastical  esta- 
blishments, and  spiritual  despotism  may  indeed  prevent 
the  visible  communion  of  the  churches,  but  they  cannot 
destroy  the  right  to  it  in  a  single  case.     And  so  any  one 


12  ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    UNITY 


Christian  church  may  so  hedge  itself  about  with  requisitions 
as  to  prevent  effectually  other  churches  from  communing 
with  it ;  nevertheless,  the  right  exists,  and  it  is  a  very  grave 
matter  not  to  recognise  it.  Indeed,  this  repudiation  is  an 
unequivocal  and  practical  condemnation  of  a  right  which 
God  himself,  by  a  thousand  indubitable  evidences,  has 
accepted,  sealed,  and  confirmed.  Let  our  Baptist  brethren 
suspend  their  prejudices  for  a  time  sufficient  calmly  and 
candidly  to  review  their  grounds  of  exclusiveness  and  con- 
sider the  claims  of  other  churches  to  all  the  privileges  of 
the  church  of  God,  and,  if  they  discover  not  that  those 
claims  are  as  clearly  and  strongly  supported  as  their  own, 
then  in  despair  we  must  surrender  the  hope  of  sacramental 
communion  with  them,  and  be  content  to  agree  to  disagree. 

2.  The  second  fundamental  principle  in  the  unity  of  the 
church  is  brotherly  love. 

"  Let  hrotherly  love  continue"  is  an  injunction  that 
originates  in  the  nature  of  God,  and  is  the  law  that  binds 
his  angelic  and  ransomed  family  together.  Brotherly  love 
is  the  principal  proof  of  reconciliation  and  communion  with 
God;  for  ''we  know  that  we  have  passed  from  death  unto 
life,  because  we  love  the  brethren."  It  is  the  safeguard 
of  the  church  against  hatred,  envyings,  strifes,  clamors, 
jealousies,  discords,  malice,  whisperings,  backbitings,  evil 
surmises,  vain-glory,  wranglings,  schism,  bigotry,  prose- 
lytism,  and  every  other  ungracious  temper  and  action 
which  alienate  and  divide  the  church  of  God.  It  is  the 
parent  of  gentleness,  kindness,  long-suffering,  meekness, 
mercies,  and  the  whole  assemblage  of  personal  and  social 
graces.  The  very  object  of  the  doctrines,  precepts,  prayers, 
promises,  example,  tears,  and  death  of  Christ  was  to  esta- 
blish the  empire  of  love  among  men.  "  For  this  purpose 
was  the  Son  of  God  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the 
works  of  the  devil.     But  God  is  love ;  and  he  that  dwelleth 


OF   THE    CHURCH.  13 


in  love  dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in  him.  He  tliat  loveth 
not  knoweth  not  God.  Hereby  shall  all  men  know  that 
ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  to  another.'^  The 
violation  of  this  holy  affection  is  a  practical  renunciation  of 
Christianity  itself. 

The  most  exalted  grace  of  the  Christian  character,  and 
the  most  convincing  and  admirable  proof  of  the  purity  of 
a  Christian  denomination,  is  charity, — a  grace  that  legiti- 
mately admits  of  no  defect  and  is  capable  of  no  excess. 
All  else  is  but  semblance,  self-righteousness,  self-deception, 
and  utter  worthlessness  in  the  sight  of  God.  Knowledge 
that  comprehends  all  languages  and  all  mysteries,  the  gift 
of  prophecy,  faith  that  removes  mountains,  the  virtue  of 
alms-giving  that  exhausts  the  last  earthly  possession,  zeal 
that  glows  even  in  the  fires  of  martyrdom,  all  are  nothing, 
and  profit  nothing,  without  this  exalted  heavenly  grace.  It 
would  seem  to  be  impossible  for  these  religious  appearances 
to  exist  separated  from  charity;  but  it  is  possible  for 
humanity  to  be  so  afi"ected  by  the  knowledge  and  so 
improved  by  the  initial  grace  of  God  as  to  produce  these 
semblances  of  true  religion,  while  the  heart  is  under  the 
control  of  a  corrupt  and  rebellious  will  and  destitute  of  the 
holy  principle  from  which  they  should  spring.  Natural 
talents,  unsupported  by  charity,  may  acquire  and  avow 
possession  of  these  magnificent  gifts.  Ambitious,  self- 
righteous  persons,  from  the  desire  to  gain  renown,  may 
subject  themselves  to  the  most  painful  exercises  of  self- 
denial  and  laborious  works  of  formal  piety;  and  they  may 
even  go  self-deceived  down  to  the  grave  and  up  to  the 
judgment.  Our  Lord  shows  that  many  such  evil  cha- 
racters do  exist.  "  Many  will  say  to  me,  in  that  day.  Lord, 
Lord,  have  we  not  prophesied  in  thy  name?  and  in  thy 
name  have  cast  out  devils  ?  and  in  thy  name  done  many 
wonderful  works  ?"  &c.     His  approval  and  blessing  will  be 


14  ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    UNITY 


granted  to  nothing  but  that  which  springs  from  his  pure, 
unselfish  love.  This  to  man  in  this  life  is  the  only  fully- 
convincing  proof  of  the  new  creature;  and  the  least  evi- 
dence of  a  destitution  of  it  is  sufficient  to  excite  the 
suspicion  that  a  profession  of  religion  is  founded  in  decep- 
tion or  hypocrisy,  or  that  he  whose  bosom  may  have  been 
animated  by  its  presence  and  expanded  by  its  power  has 
been  transformed  into  the  gloomy  and  disdainful  bigot.  It 
is  the  strong  inward  tendency  and  direction  of  regenerated 
real  self  toward  God ;  it  is  the  positive  outpouring  of  the 
richest,  tenderest  regards  to  man.  It  is  a  celestial  passion 
that  destroys  the  depraved  principle  of  isolation  from  Grod 
and  his  family,  and  which,  so  far  from  hindering  in  the 
least  degree  the  communion  of  the  churches,  or  invading 
their  unity,  exerts  its  whole  energy  in  strengthening  and 
perpetuating  their  fellowship  to  the  last  sigh,  and  glows 
with  an  ardor  proportioned  to  "  the  love  of  God  shed  abroad 
in  the  heart. '^  The  body  of  Christ  is  one ;  and  every 
member  of  this  body,  no  matter  to  what  evangelical  church 
he  belongs,  has  a  divine  right  to  spiritual  union  and  formal 
communion  with  every  other  evangelical  church ;  for  he  has 
a  spiritual  birthright  under  the  everlasting  covenant  to  all 
the  privileges  and  provisions  of  that  covenant.  And  conse- 
quently every  evangelical  church  is  placed  under  solemn 
obligation  by  divine  authority  to  recognise  this  relation  and 
right  in  every  one  who  she  believes  ^'  has  received  Christ 
Jesus  the  Lord,  and  is  walking  in  him,"  and  to  extend  to 
him  cordially  the  tokens  of  this  recognition  by  admitting 
him  to  sacramental  communion.  The  denial  of  this  right 
by  any  church  is  an  assumption  of  power,  an  exercise  of 
authority,  which  the  gospel  does  not  justify,  founded  on 
the  conceit  that  there  is  no  true  church  but  herself,  though 
she  calls  the  rejected  disciples  of  Christ  '^  brethren  beloved," 
*^  dear  brethren,"  '^  precious  saints,"  "  children  of  God," — 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  15 


acknowledges  their  gifts  and  graces  and  rejoices  in  their 
successes, — all  the  while,  no  doubt,  sincere,  though  it  is 
rather  an  incongruous  way  of  expressing  sincerity  and  love. 
How  they  can  fairly  discriminate  between  the  character  of 
Christians,  which  they  admit  in  others,  and  the  consequent 
right  of  such  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church,  which  they 
deny  they  have,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive,  especially  when 
other  evangelical  churches  hold  their  right  to  all  the  bless- 
ings and  privileges  of  the  everlasting  covenant  by  the  same 
tenure, — that  is,  upon  the  same  evangelical  ground  sub- 
stantially on  which  they  hold  theirs.  If  such  sects  had 
existed  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  their  arrogance  would 
have  been  considered  as  a  violation  of  the  rule  of  brotherly 
love  which  united  the  apostolic  churches  in  one  common 
communion,  and  as  an  invasion  of  the  social  order  and  har- 
mony of  the  Christian  church. 

Thus,  all  varieties  of  opinion  and  observance  which  do 
not  subvert  the  foundation  of  evangelical  faith,  nor  corrupt 
the  substance  of  the  common  institutions  of  Christianity, 
nor  impair  brotherly  love,  do  not  prevent  reciprocal  com- 
munion among  the  churches  of  Christ.  Difference  in  rites 
and  customs  in  worship,  which  vary  according  to  the 
diversity  of  place  and  people,  but  which  do  not  infringe 
the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church,  nor  are  contrary  to  the 
one  faith  and  good  morals,  and  have  a  tendency  to  promote 
religion  and  the  glory  of  God  among  men,  is  no  barrier  to 
sacramental  communion.  The  apostolic  churches  had  not 
all  exactly  the  same  form  of  government;  and  it  is  evident 
from'  ecclesiastical  history  that  the  churches  immediately 
succeeding  the  apostolic  times  gradually  altered  their 
government  from  the  apostolic  form  in  some  places  sooner 
than  in  others,  and  in  some  more  than  in  others ;  and  yet 
all  this  variety  in  opinion  and  in  practice  did  not  produce 
separate  communions,  nor  burst  the  bonds  of  common  union, 


16  ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    UNITY 


nor  cut  asunder  the  harmony  of  hrotlierJi/  Jove.  Rites  and 
ceremonies  change,  but  faith,  the  everlasting  covenant, 
Christ,  and  his  word,  change  not.  Variety  of  church- 
governments,  therefore,  if  they  be  not  repugnant  to  the 
word  of  God,  can  never  be  a  just  ground  for  a  separate 
communion ;  for  true  religion  does  not  consistfin  external 
rites,  ceremonies,  or  forms,  but  in  spiritual  benefits, — in 
righteousness,  faith,  love,  joy,  peace,  and  true  worship. 
This  rule  is  applicable  in  all  ages  of  the  church.  Nor  are 
difi"erences  in  subordinate  points  of  doctrine  sujB&cient 
ground  for  separate  communions.  By  subordinate  doc- 
trines are  meant  all  that  may  be  believed  or  doubted  without 
sacrificing  any  fundamental  principle  or  vital  truth  of 
evangelical  religion.  There  is  no  necessity  here  for  nice 
and  subtle  distinctions.  The  plainest  mind  can  distinguish 
with  sujSicient  accuracy  what  is  essential  for  every  experi- 
mental and  practical  end. 

And  so  we  infer  by  what  the  unity  of  the  church  may  be 
broken.  It  may  be  broken  by  schism, — which  is  the  rupture 
of  hrotherhj  harmony,  and  hence  is  a  violation  of  unity  and 
Christian  fellowship ;  for  love  permits  no  schism,  cherishes 
no  faction,  is  the  bond  of  union,  does  every  thing  in  har- 
mony, and  is  the  source  of  evangelical  reciprocity.  But 
schism  impedes  the  progress  of  the  gospel,  shakes  the  faith 
of  some,  causes  others  to  apostatize,  grieves  the  strong, 
weakens  the  power  of  the  church,  and  merits  the  severest 
condemnation  of  God.  The  unity  of  the  church  may  be 
broken  also  by  the  renunciation  of  the  fundamental  faith  ; 
for  the  very  principle  of  the  being  of  the  church  is  her 
faith,  and  renunciation  of  any  fundamental  doctrine  of 
Christianity  is  a  blow  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  church, 
for  she  is  "  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner- 
stone,   in  whom    all    the    building,   fitly  framed    together, 


OP   THE   CHURCH.  17 


groweth  unto  a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord."  (Eph.  ii.  20,  21.) 
That  is,  the  revelation  made  by  Christ  and  his  inspired 
prophets  and  apostles  is  God's  testimony  concerning  that 
*^  eternal  life  which  he  has  given  to  us  in  his  Son/'  and 
which  is  addressed  to  the  faith  of  his  church ;  and  thus 
the  church  exists  by  faith,  and  faith  alone.  The  denial  of 
any  capital  article  of  the  Christian  faith  is  to  mar  the  sym- 
metry and  destroy  the  unity  of  the  church.  And  so  also 
the  visible  unity  of  the  church  is  broken  by  withdrawing 
wholly  from  her  communion.  A  sect  does  this  by  setting 
up  a  separate  and  restricted  communion;  and  this  the 
Baptist  Church,  to  some  extent,  has  done.  It  is  incon- 
ceivable how  a  part  of  the  one  church  can  be  separated  from 
her  one  visible  communion  and  yet  be  a  part  of  the  one 
visible  church,  as  it  is  inconceivable  how  a  branch  can  be 
dissevered  from  a  tree  and  yet  be  united  to  the  tree,  or  a 
stream  can  be  cut  off  from  its  source  and  yet  be  connected 
with  its  source.  Union  is  the  basis  of  communion.  How 
then  can  particular  churches,  which  are  parts  of  one  whole 
and  constitute  but  one  body,  constitute  separate  and 
restricted  communions,  without  invading  the  visible  unity 
of  the  church  ?  What  paradox  can  be  more  palpable  than 
that  different  parts  of  one  whole,  having  the  very  same 
original  and  divine  means  of  life,  health,  and  vigor,  should 
have  no  sacramental  fellowship  with  each  other,  and  should 
regard  such  fellowship  as  ^^unwholesome,  unholy,  and 
unlawful' '  ?  Different  communions  exclude  the  idea  of 
visible  unify.  Two  churches,  refusing  communion  with 
each-  other,  thereby  renounce  their  relation  to  each  other  as 
parts  of  the  one  visible  church  of  Christ.  The  visible  unity 
of  the  church  cannot  consist  ivith  such  divisions.  The 
church  that  distuibs  this  unity  alone  is  culpable,  and  is 
culpable  to  the  extent  to  which  it  renounces  communion 
with  other  true  churches  of  Christ. 

2* 


18  ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  UNITY 


We  also  infer  by  wliat  means  the  visible  unity  of  the 
churcli  may  be  preserved  and  promoted.  It  may  be  pre- 
served and  promoted  by  an  inflexihle  adherence  to  the  one 
faith.  This  is  to  be  embraced  and  professed  by  all  true 
churches  the  world  over,  and  then  there  can  be  no  doctrinal 
ground  of  difference.  It  may  be  preserved  and  promoted 
by  conforming  to  the  customs  and  usages  of  tcoi'shij)  in  any 
particular  church  in  themselves  not  inconsistent  with  the 
plain  word  of  God  or  clearly  deducible  therefrom.  Forms 
of  worship  or  of  church-government  that  do  not  affect  the 
substance  of  the  one  faith,  nor  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
church,  but  which  tend  to  promote  Christian  fellowship, 
should  not  prevent  the  members  of  one  branch  of  the  church 
from  communing  with  another  branch  of  the  church  which 
they  may  happen  to  visit.  Local  or  national  peculiarities, 
or  things  indifferent,  should  not  be  permitted  to  clash  with 
the  terms  of  communion :  certain  rites  and  usages  in 
worship,  in  themselves  indifferent,  and  forms  of  ordination, 
and  the  form  or  mode  of  baptism,  are  matters  of  this  kind. 
The  visible  unity  of  the  church  may  be  preserved  and  pro- 
moted by  respecting  and  sujyporting  discipline,  by  what- 
soever true  church  administered.  All  the  parts  of  the  one 
true  church  are  invested  with  equal  authority  to  administer 
discipline  according  to  the  gospel;  and  hence  a  member 
justly  expelled  from  any  particular  church  is  expelled  from 
the  one  church  of  Christ,  and  other  particular  churches 
should  so  regard  the  expelled  member.  The  sentence  of 
one  court  of  Christ's  kingdom  is  to  be  held  valid  and  sacred 
by  every  other.  Not  to  do  this  is  to  reject  the  ministry 
and  ordinances  of  Christ.  One  church  of  Christ  can  never 
innocently  interfere  with  the  judicial  acts  of  another,  or 
release  from  censure  or  condemnation  each  other's  offenders. 
Thus  they  declare  their  social  union,  impart  mutual  strength, 
and  maintain  the  dignity  and  purity  of  the  church  of  God 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  19 


The  visible  unity  of  the  church  is  further  preserved  and 
promoted  by  ministerial  and  Christian  communion  icith 
one  another  as  opportunity  offers.  Ministers  and  private 
Christians  in  good  standing  in  other  churches,  and  of  irre- 
proachable lives,  should  be  received  into  communion  by  one 
church  as  fully  and  cheerfully  as  she  receives  her  own. 
And  ministers  and  private  members  of  one  church  should 
as  solemnly  feel  it  to  be  their  duty,  and  make  it  their  prac- 
tice, to  commune  with  other  true  churches  the  world  over, 
as  occasion  offers,  as  with  their  own ;  for  the  obligation  to 
obey  God  is  the  same  in  all  his  churches.  The  one  church 
of  Christ,  scattered  over  the  whole  earth,  should  have  but 
one  communion.  And  he,  whether  minister  or  private 
member,  who  is  in  communion  with  one  part  of  the  church 
of  God  is  in  communion  with  every  other  part  of  it,  and 
should  be  so  acknowledged  and  received  by  every  other  part 
of  it.  Not  to  do  this  "is  to  make  new  boundaries  of 
Christian  communion,  and  a  new  Christianity,  and  a  neic 
gospel,  and  new  rules  of  Christ's  kingdom  3  and  in  effect  to 
dethrone  him,  to  rival  him  in  his  highest  prerogative, — 
viz.  :  the  establishing  the  t^ms  of  life  and  death  for  men 
living  under  his  gospel.  It  is  to  confine  salvation,  in  the 
means,  to  such  or  such  a  party,  such  a  church,  arbitrarily 
distinguished  from  the  rest  of  Christians, — as  if  the  privi- 
leges of  his  kingdom  belonged  to  a  party  only;  and  that,  for 
instance,  the  Lord's  table  were  to  lose  its  name,  and  be  no 
longer  so  called,  but  the  table  of  this  or  that  church,  consti- 
tuted by  rules  of  their  own  devising.  For,  if  it  be  the  Lord's 
table,  they  are  to  keep  it  free,  to  be  approached  upon  the 
Lord's  terms  and  not  their  own.  In  the  mean  time,  what 
higher  invasion  can  there  be  of  Christ's  rights?  And  since 
the  Christian  church  became  so  over-wise  above  what  is 
written,   in   framing  new  doctrines  and  rules  of  worship, 


20  ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    UNITY 


how  miserably  it  hath  languished  and  been  torn  in  pieces 
they  cannot  be  ignorant  "who  have  read  any  thing  of  the 
history  of  it."* 

A  church  that  refuses  to  hold  communion  with  any  other 
assumes  at  least  that  she  alone  is  pure,  and  that  the  rest 
are  too  corrupt  to  commune  with  her.  Before  a  church 
takes  this  lofty  position,  she  should  be  certain  that  offences 
are  not  concealed  in  her  own  bosom;  that  she  does  not 
connive  at  abuses  in  her  own  members;  that  her  rites, 
ceremonies,  usages,  forms,  modes,  opinions,  doctrines,  prac- 
tices, onli/  are  scriptural ;  that  she  only  is  pure  and  spotless ; 
that  she  only  is  the  true  church,  and  the  whole  church,  of 
God  on  earth.  Otherwise  she  runs  the  extreme  hazard  of 
offending  against  the  visible  unity  of  the  church  of  God, 
and  so  of  violating  the  commands  of  Christ  to  cultivate 
that  unity.  No  separate  and  exclusive  communion  can  be 
acquitted  from  serious  imputation.  The  learning,  talent, 
piety,  extensive  usefulness,  charity,  and  convincing  evi- 
dences of  God's  sanction  and  support  of  other  churches 
must  greatly  enhance  the  imputation.  Such  an  assumption 
in  any  church  is,  in  effect,  to  unchurch  other  churches,  and 
to  declare  that  they  are  no  churches,  and  that  their  minis- 
ters and  members  are  not  the  ministers  and  followers  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or  that  they  are  so  corrupt  as  to  render 
communion  with  them  unlawful.  This  is  the  spirit  of 
bigotry  without  disguise  and  the  spirit  of  excommunication 
in  disguise, — wanting  nothing  but  the  form  and  power  to 
constitute  the  sect  which  it  governs  an  excommunicating 
church, — a  conclusion  from  which  the  pious  heart,  in  these 
palmy  days  of  tolerance  and  charity,  recoils  with  fear  and 
horror.     In  this  virtual  denial  of  the  visible  Christianity 

*  Howe's  Works.:  Sermon  entitled  "  Pence,  God's  blessing." 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  21 


of  other  churches,  in  this  refusal  to  commune  with  other 
churches,  in  this  virtual  unchurching  and  excommunicating 
all  other  churches,  we  may  acquit  the  Baptist  Church  of 
intention;  but  such  is  the  consequence  of  her  arguments 
and  the  tendency  of  her  'practice  as  far  as  it  goes ;  for,  in 
excluding  other  churches  and  Christians  from  communing 
with  her,  what  more  does  she  deny  to  them  than  to  the 
infidel,  the  profane,  the  profligate,  the  heretic,  and  the 
idolater?  The  Baptist  Church,  in  denying  the  visible 
Christianity  of  other  churches,  or — which  is  the  same 
thing — in  withholding  the  communion  from  and  refusing  to 
commune  with  them,  virtually  assumes  to  be  the  only  true 
church  of  Christ  on  earth,  and  so  virtually  inflicts  excom- 
munication— the  heaviest  penalty  in  the  kingdom  of  God — 
upon  all  the  rest,  which,  we  joyfully  believe,  will  not  be 
ratified  in  heaven.  Though  the  Baptists,  in  denying  us 
the  holy  communion,  treat  us  as  open  unbelievers,  we  hope 
our  reasons  for  receiving  it  at  other  hands  will  be  found 
valid,  and  ourselves  acquitted  at  the  tribunal  of  God.  And 
we  may  remind  the  Baptists  that  they  should  review  their 
ground  as  those  ^^who  shall  give  account. '^  They  cheer- 
fully receive  into  their  fold,  whenever  occasion  ofters,  and 
admit  to  communion,  the  fruits  of  our  ministry;  and  in  this 
they  have  received  from  us  no  small  accession  to  their 
number  and  strength.  It  seems  that  consistency  and 
justice  require  that  they  reciprocate  this  Christian  service 
at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  where  so  many  of  the  signs  of  our 
ministry  and  Christian  integrity  are  recognised  as  the 
children  of  God  and  true  members  of  the  ''  household  of 
faith.''  That  the  mere  mode  of  baptism  (immersion) 
should  give  these  converts  a  title  which  their  spiritual 
fathers  do  not  possess,  is,  in  fact,  an  argument  that  sacri- 
fices the  substance  to  the  sign,  and  constructs  a  sejjarate 
communion  upon  the  destruction  of  the  visible  unity  of  the 


BAPTISM    NOT    PREREQUISITE 


very  church  from  which  the  Baptists  derive  so  much  of 
their  strength.  May  the  flimsy  sophism  speedily  yield  to 
the  common  sense  of  America  as  it  is  yielding  in  England 
and  Canada ! 


CHAPTER  11. 


REPLY    TO    THE    ARGUMENT    THAT    BAPTISM    IS   PREREQUI- 
SITE   TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION. 

The  Baptists  assume  that  baptism  is  indispensahlj/  pre- 
requisite to  the  Lord's  table,  and  their  argument  is  the 
following : — No  one  has  a  right  to  the  Lord's  table  who  is 
not  a  member  of  the  visible  church.  No  one  is  a  member 
of  the  visible  church  who  has  not  been  baptized, — that  is, 
immersed.  Therefore,  no  one  has  a  right  to  the  Lord's 
table  who  has  not  been  immersed.  This  argument  they 
endeavor  to  sustain,  first,  by  the  commission  of  Christ  to 
his  apostles,  and,  secondly,  by  the  practice  of  the  apostles. 
That  is,  they  deduce  from  the  commission  of  Christ,  and 
the  practice  of  the  apostles,  such  a  dependence  of  the  sacra- 
ments upon  each  other  as  renders  baptism  indispensably 
prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  table.  This  is  their  whole  argu- 
ment for  close  communion. 

,  The  proofs  on  which  the  Baptists  mainly  depend  for 
separate  communion  are  thus, stated: — ''It  is  to  the  com- 
mission— the  law  itself — that  we  refer  you  as  the  authority 
on  which  our  practice  is  founded."*  ''While  we  appeal  to 
our  Lord's  commission  as  our  primary  authority,  we  consider 
the  example  of  the  apostles  as  an  important  auxiliary,  both 

*  Fuller  on  Communion,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i,  p.  238. 


TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  23 


as  an  inspired  explanation  of  the  law  and  a  pattern  of  obe- 
dience evidently  intended  for  our  imitation."*  Here  the 
Baptists  take  their  stand.  When  driven  from  every  other 
position,  they  halt  in  these  last  entrenchments,  and,  though 
stormed  and  levelled  to  the  ground,  they  vainly  and  repeat- 
edly endeavor  to  rebuild  and  repossess  them.  The  argu- 
ment against  the  Baptists  on  this  point  is  invincible. 

1.  That  faith  in  an  unbaptized  adult  should  precede 
baptism  there  can  be  no  doubt.  This  the  great  commission 
settles.  That  this  is  the  law  of  adult  haptism  we  are  all 
agreed.  But  this  is  not  the  question.  The  true  question 
is,  Is  baptism  indispensably  prerequisite  to  sacramental 
communion  ?  On  this  particular  point  not  one  loord  is 
found  in  the  great  commission;  and  hence  an  invariable 
order  in  the  observance  of  the  sacraments  cannot  be  founded 
upon  the  great  commission.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  sacra- 
mental communion  in  all  cases  depends  upon  baptism,  as  it 
can  be  that  sacramental  communion  depends  upon  faith,  we 
give  up  the  cause.  Or  if  it  can  be  shown  that  sacramental 
communion  depends  upon  baptism,  as  it  can  be  that  an 
unbaptized  person  should  believe  before  he  should  be  bap- 
tized, we  give  up  the  cause.  Circumcision,  it  is  true,  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation  was  indispensably  prerequisite  to 
the  Passover,  because  it  is  expressly  stated,  "  No  uncircum- 
cised  person  shall  eat  thereof."  But  it  is  nowhere  stated  in 
the  New  Testament,  No  unbaptized  person  shall  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  Mr.  Fuller  admits  that  it  is 
'^nowhere,  certainly,"^  so  stated.  The  Baptists  have  a 
very  convenient  way  of  arguing  from  the  supposed  order  in 
which  things  occurred  in  apostolic  days  when  it  suits  their 
case,  but  never  otherwise.     The  mere  fact,  in  some  cases, 


*  Fuller  on  Communion,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  p.  2i6. 
t  Ibid.  p.  239. 


24  BAPTISM   NOT   PREREQUISITE 


that  baptism  succeeded  the  profession  of  faith,  is  no  proof 
that  this  was  always  the  case.  ^Ye  can  argue  nothing  from 
the  external  order  which  the  apostles  pursued,  unless  they 
expressly  and  plainly  enjoined  that  order  as  an  invariable 
standard  for  the  church  in  all  ages.  This  they  have  not 
done  in  one  single  particular.  If  Christ  and  his  apostles 
had  expressly  and  plainly  enjoined  that  baptism  should  in 
all  cases  precede  sacramental  communion,  controversy  would 
be  at  an  end.  But  nowhere  can  this  injunction  be  found 
in  the  Bible;  and 'therefore  the  question  in  this  case  cannot 
be  settled  by  the  commission  of  Christ  or  the  practice  of  the 
apostles,  as  in  other  cases — admitted  on  all  hands — the 
church  has  since  very  properly  varied  from  the  practice  of 
the  apostles. 

The  reason  why  baptism  ordinarily  preceded  sacramental 
communion  and  every  other  church-service  in  the  apostles* 
days  is  found  in  the  circumstances  of  the  times,  and  not  in 
any  essential  relation  which  the  two  sacraments  hold  to 
each  other.  In  their  day,  ordinarily,  immediatehj  upon  the 
profession  of  faith  it  is  probable  the  subject  was  baptized, 
and  hence  no  period  elapsed  in  which  the  believer  might 
observe  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  or  any  other  insti- 
tution of  Christianity.  It  is  not  so  now;  it  is  not  probable 
that  it  was  always  so  in  apostolic  times.  Now  often  neces- 
sarily a  considerable  length  of  time  intervenes  between 
conversion  and  baptism ;  and  during  this  time  no  positive 
duty  (and  sacramental  communion  is  such  a  duty)  should 
be  neglected.  That  is,  in  the  enactment  of  positive  laws, 
the  time  of  their  enactment  cannot  give  precedence  to  one 
over  another  in  the  mere  order  of  their  observance,  for  all 
are  equally  binding,  and  each  is  to  be  obeyed  as  opportunity 
offers ;  so  that  a  law  enacted  thousands  of  years  ago  should 
be  obeyed  repeatedly  before  one  enacted  yesterday  can  be 
obeyed  for  the  first  time.     For  example : — the  Sabbath  was 


TO    SACRAMENTAL   COMMUNION. 


instituted  at  the  creation,  and  it  may  be  observed  often, 
after  faith,  before  an  opportunity  occurs  to  be  baptized ;  or 
one  may  be  baptized,  or  he  may  partake  of  the  sacred 
supper,  he/ore  he  for  the  first  time  froperlij  observes  the 
Sabbath,  though  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  were  insti- 
'  tuted  thousands  of  years  after  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath. 
Unless  antecedence  in  the  observance  of  laws  and  ordinances 
is  positively  and  expressly  enjoined,  it  cannot  be  required 
as  a  matter  of  invariable  dut3\  Mr.  Hall  has  laid  down 
this  principle  in  the  most  forcible  manner.  "  In  the  details 
of  civil  life,  no  man  thinks  of  regulating  his  actions  by  an 
appeal  to  the  respective  dates  of  existing  laws,  but  solely 
by  a  regard  to  their  just  interpretation ;  and,  were  it  once 
admitted  as  a  maxim  that  the  particular  law  latest  enacted 
must  invariably  be  last  obeyed,  the  affairs  of  mankind  would 
fall  into  utter  confusion.  It  is  a  principle  as  repugnant  to 
the  nature  of  divine  as  it  is  to  human  legislation.  It 
appears  from  the  history  of  the  patriarchs  that  sacrificial 
rites  were  ordained  much  earlier  than  circumcision ;  but  no 
sooner  was  the  latter  enjoined  than  it  demanded  the  earliest 
attention,  and  the  otierings  prescribed  on  the  birth  of  a 
child  did  not  precede,  but  were  subsequent  to,  the  ceremony 
of  circumcision."*  Mr.  Fuller  employs  a  sophism  in  reply 
to  this.  He  assumes  that  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
are  to  be  ^'  observed  in  a  certain  order,'  and  appeals  to  the 
great ''  commission"  as  proof  ;f  whereas  the  Lord's  Suijper 
is  not  even  mentioned  in  the  great  commission,  much  less 
enjoined  as  an  observance  invariably  to  succeed  baptism. 

The  statements  of  Dr.  Howell  on  this  branch  of  the 
argument  admit  of  easy  refutation.  "That  the  order  in 
which  the  several  duties  are  enjoined  in  the  commission  is 


»  nail's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  367,  3G8. 

t  Fuller  on  Strict  and  Mixed  Communion,  Bap.  Lib,,  vol.  i.  p.  238. 


20  BAPTISM    NOT    niEREQUlSITE 


divinely  prescribed  is  thus  conclusively  established  by  the 
commission  itself/'*  Not  one  word  respecting  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  contained  in  the  commission  :  how,  then,  can  the 
order  of  its  observance  be  ^^ prescribed"  in  the  commission  ? 
If  the  duty  of  observing  that  ordinance  had  not  been  pre- 
scribed elsewhere  in  the  Bible,  the  church  would  have  felt 
no  obligation  to  observe  it  at  all;  and,  consequently,  the 
commission  enjoins  no  order  but  what  may  be  prescribed 
elsewhere,  and  nowhere  in  the  Bible  is  the  necessary 
dependence  of  communion  upon  baptism  specified.  We 
reiterate  the  call  for  the  proof,  and  reiterate  in  vain.  A 
brief  consideration,  however,  of  his  argument  from  'Uhe 
design  of  the  two  institutions'^  may  amuse  the  reader : — 
"  Baptism  being  the  emblem  of  the  reception  of  life,  and 
the  eucharist  of  the  food  by  which  we  are  sustained,  the 
metaphorical  representation  requires  that  baptism  should 
always  be  received  as  a  condition  of  communion,  since  we 
must  necessarily  live  before  we  are  capable  of  receiving  the 
food  by  which  life  is  supported. "f  If  this  argument  be 
sound,  then  baptism  is  the  necessary  condition  of  spiritual 
life, — that  is,  we  must  be  baptized  '^  before  we  are  capable 
of  receiving  the  food  by  which  life  is  supported  ]"  which  is 
not  only  the  ex  opere  opercituin  dogma  of  heretical  Home, 
but  is  refuted,  as  we  shall  see,  by  the  concessions  of  the 
Baptists.  Besides,  as  ''the  eucharist  is  the  emblem  of  the 
food  by  which  we  are  sustained,^'  it  must  be  admitted  that 
the  relation  of  the  emblem  to  the  substance  is  such  that  he 
who  possesses  the  substance  is  entitled  to  the  emblem ;  or 
we  must  assume  the  absurdity  that  the  relation  of  the 
emblem  to  the  substance  is  merely  nominal  and  immaterial. 
If  the  eucharist  were  an  emblem  of  baptism,  then  there 
would  be  a  necessity  that  baptism — the  substance — should 

*  llowell  on  Comuiimion,  p.  42.  (  Ibid.  p.  17. 


TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION 


precede  the  eucharist.  But  this  Is  cot  pretended;  and 
hence,  as  there  is  no  necessary  dependence  of  one  emblem 
upon  another,  we  can  only  conclude  that  he  has  a  right  to 
an  emblem  who  possesses  the  substance  with  which  that 
emblem  is  associated.  That  pious  Pedobaptists  have  the 
substance  signified  by  the  Lord's  Supper  the  Baptists  them- 
selves admit;  and  we  need  go  no  further  to  establish  the 
right  of  the  former  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

2.  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  sacraments  that 
should  render  the  reception  of  baptism  prior  to  that  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  If  baptism  was  instituted  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  (as  the  Campbellites  maintain,) — if  baptism  were 
necessary  to  regeneration,  (as  the  Puseyites  and  Roman 
Catholics  maintain,) — then  there  would  be  strong  reason 
why  baptism  should  have  priority  in  order.  But  these 
dogmas  both  the  Baptists  and  evangelical  Pedobaptists 
reject  with  abhorrence.  But  faith  is  the  only  condition  of 
remission  of  sins  and  regeneration,  and  there  is  no  reason 
why  the  believer  should  invariably  receive  one  of  the  sacra- 
ments before  the  other.  Each  of  the  sacraments  has  its 
own  nature  and  design,  and  should  be  received  at  the  ear- 
liest convenience,  without  regard  to  priority  in  order.  If  we 
must  follow  strictly  the  apostolic  practice,  then,  as  the 
apostles  ordinarily  did,  the  Baptists  must  baptize  in  the 
'*  day''  and  "  the  hour"  their  converts  believe.  But  this 
they  fail  to  do;  and,  while  they  are  delaying  to  administer 
baptism,  shall  their  converts  be  refused  sacramental  com- 
munion ? 

Consider  a  moment  the  nature  and  benefits  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Its  nature  :  it  is  a  sacrament  or  oath  of  a  most 
solemn  nature,  denoting  affection,  zeal,  and  inviolable 
fidelity  to  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  called  the  Lord's  Svpper, 
because  it  was  instituted  in  the  evening  by  him,  at  the  close 
of  the  Jewish  passover;  because  he  partook  of  it  with  his 


BAPTISM    NOT    PREREQUISITE 


disciples;  and  because  it  sets  forth  the  bread  of  life  which 
we  receive  by  faith.  It  is  called  the  comiminion,  because 
therein  we  have  communion  with  Christ  and  his  people. 
It  is  called  the  cucharist,  because  at  the  institution  of  it 
Christ  gave  thanks,  and  we,  in  receiving  it,  also  give 
thanks.  It  is  commemorative,  because  in  observing  it  we 
remember  the  person,  love,  and  death  of  Christ.  In  it  we 
confess  our  sins  and  wants.  In  it  we  profess  our  faith  in 
Christ,  our  love  for  him,  and  our  hope  of  his  coming  again. 
It  is  a  standing  ordinance,  to  be  observed  by  the  church 
till  the  end  of  time.  Its  benefits  :  it  is  a  means  of  strength- 
ening faith.  It  affords  consolation.  It  increases  love  and 
joy.  It  instructs  in  spiritual  things.  It  produces  aversion 
to  sin  and  grief  for  sin.  It  excites  and  strengthens  all  holy 
desires  and  resolutions.  It  revives  the  liveliest  sense  of 
obligation  to  Christ.  It  binds  all  Christians  in  the  ten- 
derest  bonds  of  a  holy  brotherhood.  All  these  blessings 
flow  sweetly  from  a  proper  observance  of  the  sacred  supper; 
and  should  any  true  believer  be  denied  them  ? 

To  consider  more  at  large  the  nature  and  use  of  the 
sacraments,  and  to  whom  they  are  to  be  administered. 
First, — they  are  signs  and  seals  of  the  everlasting  covenant 
of  grace.  Hence,  all  believers,  everywhere  and  in  all  time, 
having  the  thing  signified,  have  an  equal  right  to  the  sign. 
Secondly, — the  sacraments  represent  Christ  and  his  bene- 
fits. Hence,  all  believers,  being  spiritual  partakers  of  Christ 
and  his  benefits,  have  a  right  to  those  ordinances  that  sacra- 
mentally  confirm  their  interest  in  him.  Thirdly, — the 
sacraments  visibly  set  forth  the  difference  between  those 
that  belong  to  the  spiritual  church  and  the  rest  of  mankind. 
Hence,  all  believers  have  a  right  to  this  badge  of  discri- 
mination ;  and,  consequently,  any  particular  church  that 
refuses  to  distinguish  true  believers  from  the  world  corrupts 
the   very   substance    of    the    sacraments.      Fourthly, — the 


TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNIOX.  29 


sacraments  soleranlj  bind  all  true  believers  to  the  service 
of  Christ  according  to  his  word.  Hence,  no  true  believer 
can  innocently  omit  "wilfully  the  sacramental  oaths,  and 
consequently  no  particular  church  can  innocently  exclude 
from  communion  true  believers  of  another  particular  church. 
Fifthly, — where  there  is  identity  in  internal  principle,  it  is 
puerile  to  insist  on  difference  in  form  as  a  ground  for  a 
separate  communion.  The  internal  principle  of  baptism  is 
the  same  in  the  judgment  of  the  Baptist  and  evangelical 
Pedobaptist  churches,  and  hence  the  mere  mode  or  form  of 
baptism  cannot  be  a  just  ground  for  a  separate  and  restricted 
communion  in  the  Baptist  Church.  As  soon  as  we  lose 
sight  of  internal  principle  we  lose  sight  of  land,  and  the 
harmony  of  the  visible  church  is  broken.  It  is  the  internal 
principle  that  invests  the  form  or  mode  with  value  and 
impressiveness ;  and  thus  any  mode  of  J3aptism^  in  itself  not 
repulsive  or  inappropriate,  is  invested  with  the  sanctity  of 
religion,  and  excites  in  the  subject  or  beholder  reverence 
for  the  Author  of  the  internal  principle.  While  the  evan- 
gelical Pedobaptist  churches  have  the  substance  of  Christian 
baptism,  and  repose  on  the  solid  and  precious  foundation, 
the  Bock  of  ages,  no  argument  can  set  aside  their  right 
to  sacramental  communion.  Sixthly, — the  question  in 
controversy  is  not  about  the  suhstance,  the  vital  principles 
and  virtues  of  the  gospel,  which  constitute  the  transcendent 
glory  of  the  church^,  and  which  are  the  seal  of  Grod's  eternal 
Spirit,  but  about  accidents,  mere  forms,  peculiarities^  and 
imperfections,  which  neither  destroy  the  unity  nor  b&ing 
of  the  church  nor  impede  her  efficiency  in  the  world.  The 
lawfulness  of  saqramental  communion  reposes  on  the  footing 
of  the  common  faith,  and  grows  out  of  doctrine,  and  not 
out  of  external  and  non-essential  circumstances.  The  com- 
munion of  Christ  embraces  all  his  visible  members.  All 
believers  have  a  spiritual  fellowship  with  Christ  and  each 


30  BAPTISM    NOT   PREREQUISITE 


other^  and  their  external  distance  and  repellant  divisions  arc 
inconsistent  witli  this  union,  are  founded  upon  principles 
and  causes  not  contained  in  the  gospel,  and  are  «uch  as  can 
never  be  a  substitute  for  the  visible  fellowship  which  the 
ordinances  of  the  gospel  are  designed  to  display. 

The  sacraments  are  not  iiarty-ordinances, — the  secret 
watch-words,  signs,  or  badges  of  a  particular  sect;  nor  are 
they  the  oaths  of  any  secret  fraternity.  They  have  in  them 
no  sectarian  mark  or  quality,  nor  can  they  without  sacrilege 
be  transferred  to  any  sectarian  temple  whatever.  The  holy 
table  is  the  badge  of  no  party  but  the  whole  church  of  God. 
At  this  table  all  who  ''know  his  name  and  put  their  trust 
in  him''  unite  in  homage  and  fealty  to  Him  who  "  loved 
them  and  washed  them  from  their  sins  in  his  own  blood." 
Here  Christians  of  every  name  put  off  the  sectarian  and  say 
to  each  other,  "  Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another,  for  love  is 
of  God." 

The  test  of  Christian  union  involved  in  sacramental 
communion  has  greatly  annoyed  the  Baptists ;  and,  to  break 
the  edge  of  this  argument  for  open  communion.  Dr.  Howell 
denies  that  such  a  test  is  contained  in  the  design  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  "  That  sitting  down  with  them  [communi- 
cants] at  the  Lord's  table  should  be  considered  as  the  cri- 
terion of  our  love  to  individuals  or  to  any  Christian  com- 
munity does  not  appear  from  the  word  of  God.  It  is  a 
memorial  of  God's  love  to  us,  and  of  Immanuel's  death  for 
us,  in  memory  of  whom  it  is  received."*  This  argument, 
he  admits,  he  borrows  from  Booth.  A  sufficient  answer  to 
this  is,  sacramental  communion,  in  the  nature  of  things,  is 
a  test — the  most  solemn  and  impressive  test,  though  not  the 
only  test — of  Christian  union  and  brotherly  love.  If  it  is 
not,  among  other  things,  a  formal  and  solemn  indication  of 

*  Terms  of  Communion,  p.  105. 


TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  31 


the  union  of  all  the  children  of  God,  what  is  ?  The  death 
of  Christ  is  the  common  source  of  all  the  privileges,  bless- 
ings, and  hopes  of  Christians  in  time  and  eternity;  and, 
while  it  is  true  that  sacramental  communion  is  primarily  a 
commemoration  of  God's  love  for  us,  it  is  also  true  that  the 
love  for  his  people,  which  we  derive  by  faith  in  the  death 
commemorated,  is  vindicated.  The  very  idea  of  communion 
demonstrates  this.  How  did  it  happen  that  the  word  ever 
came  into  use?  Why  has  the  doctor  written  a  treatise  on 
''  sacramental  communion'^  ?  Would  the  doctor  admit  any 
one  to  the  communion  who  he  had  sufScieut  reason  to 
believe  was  destitute  of  hrotherly  love  ?  Do  not  pious  Bap- 
tists, every  time  they  surround  the  Lord's  table,  feel  and 
indicate  a  love  for  each  other?  Would  not  the  exclusion 
of  one  believed  to  be  holy  indicate  the  want  of  love  for  him  ? 
The  eucharist  is  called  "  the  Lord's  table'^  and  ^'the  Lord's 
Supper,'^  and  the  idea  of  a  table  and  a  siqjper  involves 
social  love,  which  in  the  Christian  sense  is  but  another  term 
for  Christian  union  and  brotherly  love.  Singing  and  prayer 
have  immediate  reference  to  God  and  indicate  our  love  for 
him  and  confidence  in  him  ]  but  do  they  not  also  indicate 
our  love  for  one  another?  Baptism  has  immediate  reference 
to  our  relation  to  God  and  his  relation  to  us;  but  does  it 
not  also  indicate  our  relation  to  each  other  as  members  of 
the  same  body?  But  the  doctor  himself,  in  another  place, 
asserts  all  for  which  we  contend.  ''  Baptism,  preaching, 
singing,  prayer,  and  every  other  department  of  religious 
worship,  are  no  less  forms  of  communion  than  the  sacrament 
in  question,  and  a  united  participation  in  them  [is]  equally 
expressive  of  Christian  fellowship."*  Surely  that  cause 
which  requires  a  serious  abridgment  of  the  import  of  the 
eucharist  for  its  support  must  occupy  a  slender  foundation, 

*"  Terms  of  Cominunion,  p.  115. 


32  BAPTISM    NOT    PHEREQUISITE 


especially  when  one  of  its  warmest  advocates,  by  a  single 
concession,  overturns  the  superstructure.  Besides,  Professor 
Curtis  (a  Baptist  writer  to  whom  we  shall  refer  again)  enter- 
tains the  proper  view  on  this  point,  and  is  opposed  to  Mr. 
Booth  and  Dr.  Howell.  ^'It  [the  Lord's  Supper]  is  not 
only  committed  to  their  care,  but  is  to  be  administered 
among  them  as  a  symbol  among  other  things  of  that  fra- 
ternity which  they  bear  to  each  other  as  such.  Other 
things  are  no  doubt  signified  also,  but  this  none  the  less.'^* 
3.  If  baptism  be  indispensably  prerequisite  to  the  dis- 
charge of  the  Christian  duty  of  sacramental  communion, 
then  it  is  indispensably  prerequisite  also  to  the  discharge 
of  every  other  Christian  duty.  That  is,  a  Christian  must 
neglect  every  Christian  duty  till  he  is  immersed.  We  are 
not  to  pray,  nor  engage  in  the  praise  of  God,  nor  read  his 
word,  nor  hear  it  preached,  nor  observe  the  Sabbath,  nor 
exercise  self-denial,  nor  perform  acts  of  benevolence,  nor  do 
good  of  any  sort  or  in  any  form ;  nothing  of  the  sort  is  to  be 
done  till  we  are  baptized  or  immersed  I  A  dead  pause  in 
the  discharge  of  religious  obligations  must  intervene  between 
faith  and  baptism,  no  matter  how  long  the  interval  is !  This 
cannot  be  true.  Very  well :  why  should  the  duty  of  sacra- 
mental communion  only  be  made  to  depend  upon  the  ante- 
cedent reception  of  baptism,  especially  when  no  such  thing 
is  enjoined  as  an  exception  in  the  Bible  ?  In  other  words, 
does  baptism  specifically  refer  to  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  any  more  than  to  the  discharge  of  any  other 
Christian  duty  ?  In  receiving  the  Lord's  Supper  the  com- 
municant does  not  indicate  that  he  has  been  immersed. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  Lord's  Supper  that  signifies  the 
antecedence  of  baptism  in  any  form ;  nothing  that  holds  the 
relation  of  one  duty  necessarily  subsequent  to  another  duty; 

••■•  Progress  of  Baptit^t  Principles,  pp.  303,  307. 


TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  33 


nothing  requiring  an  invariable  order  in  discharging 
Christian  duties.  The  premises  therefore  involve  too 
much,  and  so  fall  by  their  own  weight. 

4.  But  this  position  of  the  Baptists — a  prescribed  and 
invariable  observance  of  commands  according  to  the  chrono- 
logical order  of  their  enactment — is  refuted  by  their  own 
conduct.  Prayer,  praise,  and  preaching  were  instituted  be- 
fore baptism:  and  yet  the  Baptists  themselves  unite  with 
Pedobaptists  in  these  services  when  opportunity  offers, 
which,  on  their  own  showing,  is  a  violation  of  the  rule. 
And  if  they  feel  justified  in  violating  their  own  rule, — as 
they  undoubtedly  are  justified, — why  not  carry  their  practice 
through,  and  unite  with  their  Pedobaptist  brethren  at  the 
Lord's  table?  Or  why  not  carry  their  rule  out  in  all  its  ap- 
plications, and  decline  communion  with  all  other  churches 
in  prayer  and  praise  and  preaching,  which,  Mr.  Fuller 
admits,  "  were  duties  he/ore  the  formation  of  a  single  Chris- 
tian church,  and  would  have  been  duties  to  the  end  of  time 
had  no  such  institution  existed''?*  And  Mr.  Fuller  even 
affirms^  ^^In  uniting  with  Pedobaptists  in  prayer  and 
praise,  and  preaching  the  gospel,  and  acts  of  benevolence, 
we  cultivate  such  a  union  as  evidently  is  our  duty.^'-\  But 
prayer  and  praise  and  preaching  were  instituted  before  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  ordained :  therefore,  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  Baptists  to  unite  with  Pedobaptists  in 
sacramental  communion, — Mr.  Fuller  being  judge. 

5.  The  nature  of  faith  is  opposed  to  this  imagined  inva- 
riable order.  Faith  gives  a  title  to  both  baptism  and  the 
Lord's 'Supper:  how  then  can  baptism  give  a  title  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  when  the  right  is  already  included  in  faith? 
or  why  should  the  Baptists  make  one  sacrament  prerequisite 
to  the  other,  when  the  title  to  both  is  included  in  faith  ? 

•■-■  Fuller  on  Communiou,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  p.  24.3.  f  Ibid.  p.  243. 


84  BAPTIS:\I    NOT    PRFRF,QUISITE 


The  sacraments  are  signs  and  seals  that  belong  to  one  and 
the  same  person.  How  then  can  one  sign  be  made  con- 
ditional of  the  other,  when  the  believer  has  already  a  right 
to  both  signs?  There  is  no  more  reason  why  baptism  should 
precede  the  Lord's  Supper  than  the  Lord's  Supper  should 
precede  baptism ;  and  man  has  no  right  to  determine  arbi- 
trarily which  should  have  antecedence.  One  does  not  de- 
pend on  the  other,  but  both  on  faith  and  a  spiritual  nature. 

The  Romish  and  the  Baptist  Churches  make  baptism  in- 
dispensable to  communion,  but  for  a  different  reason, — the 
one  maintaining  that  regeneration  accompanies  baptism,  and 
the  other  that  God  has  so  commanded.  If  the  Romish 
opinion  of  the  efficacy  of  baptism  were  right,  then  there 
would  be  a  reason  why  baptism  should  be  required  in  order 
to  the  Lord's  Supper;  but,  as  the  reason  supposed  does  not 
exist,  the  Romish  view  must  be  rejected.  If  the  Baptist  view 
of  the  connection  of  the  two  sacraments  be  correct,  there  must 
be  some  reason  for  it,  and  none  is  offered  but  the  assumption 
of  a  positive  divine  command;  but  we  call  in  vain  for  such  a 
command,  and  the  presumption  is  that  no  such  connection 
exists  in  the  nature  of  things,  since  the  believer,  without  bap- 
tism, is  qualified  spiritually  to  observe  the  communion;  or, 
if  such  connection  does  exist,  the  presumption  is  that  pious 
Pedobaptists  have  been  properly  baptized,  and  the  Baptists 
are  wrong  in  the  dogma  of  exclusive  immersion,  for  pious 
Pedobaptists  are  spiritually  entitled  and  spiritually  qualified 
to  partake  of  the  communion. 

6.  But  the  fact  in  the  case  is  against  the  position  of  the 
Baptists,  and  we  only  refer  to  the  fact  to  set  aside  their 
position,  and  not  as  the  ground  of  a  rule  for  the  invariable 
practice  of  the  church.  The  fact  is,  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
instituted  he/ore  baptism.  It  was  instituted  by  Christ 
before  his  cTeath;  baptism  was  instituted  after  his  death. 
The  only  reply  to  this  is,  that  John's  baptism  was  Christian 


TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  35 


baptism,  aud  therefore  Christian  baptism  was  instituted 
before  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  the  Baptists  have  been  so 
often  completely  routed  on  this  field,  and  especially  by  their 
own  elegant  and  accomplished  Hall,  that  we  need  not  stop 
long  to  review  the  ground. 

We  observe  that  when  a  dispensation  ended  its  seal  ended 
with  it.  The  Jewish  dispensation  was  preparatori/  to  the 
Christian,  and  it  had  its  outward  seal, — circumcision;  John's 
dispensation  was  blended  with  the  Jewish,  without  the 
abolition  of  any  of  its  rights  and  ceremonies,  and  thus  it 
became  also  preparatory  to  the  Christian  dispensation  and 
had  its  characteristic  seal.  Now,  when  the  mixed  dispensa- 
tion of  Moses  and  John  ended,  as  it  did  on  the  death  of 
Christ,  both  circumcision  and  JohrCs  baptism  ended  with  it^ 
and  all  that  was  retained  by  Christ  of  John^s  baptism  was, 
not  its  form  and  meaning,  but  the  element  of  ivater,  with 
the  application  of  which  Christ  connected  a  new  form  and 
a  new  meaning.  John's  baptism  was  no  more  Christian 
baptism  than  circumcision  was  a  Christian  sacrament.  And 
therefore  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  before  Christian 
baptism,  since  the  former  was  instituted  before,  and  the 
latter  after,  the  death  of  Christ. 

Besides,  if  John's  baptism  was  Christian  baptism,  it  is 
singular  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  instituted  sooner, 
since  it  was  not  instituted  till  three  years  at  least  after 
John  commenced  baptizing.  What  a  state  of  things  for 
the  Christian  church, — tlcree  years  with  but  one  sacrament ! 
Three  years  in  the  visible  church  of  Christ  before  admitted 
to  sacramental  communion  !  Three  years  in  the  visible 
Christian  church  before  its  foundation — the  death  of  Christ 
— was  laid  ! 

Moreover,  John's  baptism  is  spoken  of  as  something  dif- 
ferent from  Christian  baptism.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke 
speak  of  it  as  ''the  baptism  of  John,"  "the  baptism  of 


36  BAPTISM    NOT    TREREQUISITE 


repentance/'  "  the  baptism  of  water;"  Peter  calls  it  ^'  the 
baptism  wbicli  John  preached ;"  Paul  calls  it  the  ^'  baptism 
of  repentance ;"  and  Paul  caused  several  of  John's  disciples 
to  be  rehaptized.  Two  institutions  thus  represented  as 
different  cannot  be  the  same. 

Again,  if  John's  baptism  was  Christian  baptism,  by  the 
same  reasoning  the  Jewish  passover  was  the  Lord's  Supper, 
for  John  celebrated  the  passover  as  well  as  administered 
baptism.  But  as  the  passover  was  different  from  the  Lord's 
Supper,  so  was  John's  baptism  different  from  Christian 
baptism.  And  so,  as  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  be  dated  from 
its  first  celebration  by  our  Lord,  Christian  baptism  is  to  be 
dated  from  the  commission  given  by  our  Lord  after  his 
resurrection.  Thus,  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  before 
Christian  baptism,  which  subverts  the  foundation  on  which 
the  Baptists  rear  the  whole  superstructure  of  their  argument 
for  close  communion. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  twelve  apostles  had  not  received 
Christian  baptism  when  they  partook  of  the  last  supper 
with  Christ.  These  at  least  were  without  Christian  bap- 
tism, and  Christ  himself  admitted  them  to  his  sacred 
supper.  And  what  are  we  to  say  of  the  "seventy  dis- 
ciples," of  whom  the  Baptists  boast  so  much?  "We  hear 
not  a  word  of  their  rebaptism,  and  certainly  they  were 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  table  by  the  apostles.  Besides,  the 
Baptists  assume  that  these  '^  seventy  disciples"  aided  the 
apostles  in  baptizing  the  "  three  thousand"  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost ;  and  thus  they  attempt  to  remove  a  difficulty  to 
immersion.  But  they  extricate  themselves  from  one  difji- 
culty  but  to  be  involved  in  another;  for  how  could  these 
''seventy"  baptize  others  when  they  were  not  baptized 
themselves?  And  then  there  are  the  ''five  hundred 
brethren"  of  whom  Paul  speaks :  we  hear  not  a  word  of 
their  rebaptism.     They  were  "  brethren,"  and  consequently 


TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  37 


belonged  to  the  apostolic  or  Christian  church,  and  therefore 
were  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  without  Christian  bap- 
tism. Now,  here  are  facts  directly  in  opposition  to  the 
opinion  that  baptism  is  indispensably  prerequisite  to  sacra- 
mental communion ;  and  they  are  facts  that  occurred  under 
the  eye  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

But  we  proceed  further.  If  John's  baptism  was  Christian 
baptism,  then  the  Baptists  do  wrong  in  requiring  repentance 
and  faith  hefore  baptism,  for  John's  baptism  preceded 
repentance  and  faith.  Let  the  Baptists  abandon  the  false 
idea  of  John's  baptism,  or  renounce  the  true  doctrine  of 
Christian  baptism.  They  must  either  grant  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  instituted  before  Christian  baptism,  or  they 
must  invert  the  order  of  their  indispensable  prerequisites  to 
the  Lord's  Supper  and  make  them  haptism,  repentance, 
and  faith  :  in  the  former  case  they  relinquish  the  invariable 
order  they  require  in  the  administration  of  the  sacraments ; 
in  the  latter  they  overturn  their  church  as  evangelical. 
Again :  if  John's  baptism  was  Christian  baptism,  and 
John's  baptism  was  required  hefore  repentance  and  faith, 
then  the  apostles  were  baptized  (if  they  were  baptized  at 
all)  hefore  they  repented  and  believed.  Why,  then,  if 
John's  baptism  and  Christian  baptism  are  the  same,  did 
they  invert  the  order,  and  teach  repentance  and  faith  in 
adults  hefore  baptism  ?  Besides,  if  the  modifications  made 
by  Christ  in  John's  baptism  did  not  change  it  into  Christian 
baptism  so  as  to  make  it  a  new  and  distinct  sign  and  seal, 
then  the  modifications  made  by  Christ  in  the  Jewish  pass- 
over  did  not  change  its  nature  and  meaning  so  as  to  make 
it  a  new  and  distinct  Christian  sacrament ;  and,  therefore, 
the  Lord's  Supper  being  identical  with  the  Jewish  passover, 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  long  hefore  Christian  bap- 
tism, for  it  was  instituted  by  Moses  in  the  wilderness  long 
before  John's  baptism  was  instituted.     Moreover,  if  John's 


38  BAPTISM    NOT   PREREQUISITE 


baptism  was  Christian  baptism,  why  did  Christ  strictly 
charge  his  disciples  before  his  ascension  to  tell  no  man  that 
he  was  the  Christ  ?  This  caution  was  absurd  if  John  and 
Christ's  disciples  disclosed  this  great  secret  every  time  they 
baptized.  Finally:  if  John's  baptism  was  Christian  bap- 
tism, then  all  who  received  Christ  under  John's  dispensation 
rejected  him  under  the  Christian  dispensation, — that  is, 
became  ajjostates.  But,  in  the  first  place,  '^  he  came  unto 
his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not."  And,  in  the 
second  place,  neither  the  prophets  make  the  remotest 
allusion  to  this  apostasy,  nor  do  the  apostles  remind  the 
Jews  of  their  baptismal  vows  assumed  under  John's  dis- 
pensation, "  and  of  their  unspeakable  impiety  in  crucifying 
the  divine  person  to  whom  they  had  previously  dedicated 
themselves  in  solemn  rites  of  religion. ''*  And  Mr.  Hall 
observes,  "  Since  it  is  manifest  that  the  baptism  of  John 
did  not  supersede  the  Christian  ordinance,  they  being  per- 
fectly distinct,  it  is  natural  to  inquire,  Who  baptized  the 
apostles  and  the  hundred  and  twenty  disciples  assembled 
with  them  at  the  day  of  Pentecost  ?  My  deliberate  opinion 
is  that,  in  the  Christian  sense  of  the  term,  they  were  not 
baptized  at  alL'^'j' 

In  replying  to  the  argument  on  this  topic,  Dr.  Howell 
furnishes  an  example  of  how  much  truth  may  be  sacrificed 
in  support  of  error.  Says  he,  '^  If  it  was  not  John's,  then 
it  was  certainly  the  Christian  baptism ;  if  it  was  John's 
baptism,  then  John's  baptism  issued  from  the  personal 
authority  of  Christ.  In  either  case  Christian  baptism  was 
administered  before  the  death  of  Christ,  was  an  institution 
prior  to  the  eucharist,  and  had  been  received  by  all  who 
were  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper.^'J  That  ^' John  received 

*  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  388.  f  Ibid.  vol.  5.  p.  303. 

X  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  74. 


TO    SACrwAMEiNTAL    COMMUNION.  39 


liis  commission  from  Jesus  in  j)ersoji,"  the  doctor  ufirms, 
^'  no  one  contends/'*  How  then  ?  V/by,  because  •'  Christ 
is  Goc?,"  and  as  such  is  *^  head  of  the  church/'f  therefore 
John's  baptism  ^'  issued  from  the  personal  authority  of 
Christ."  Very  well :  then  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  with 
all  its  rites  and  ceremonies,  was  the  Cliristian  dispensation, 
because  it  issued  from  the  personal  authority  of  Christ  as 
God  and  as  the  head  of  the  church.  But  Christ  abolished 
by  his  death  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation :  therefore  he  abolished  Christian  rites  and  cere- 
monies by  his  death  !  The  radical  and  fatal  defect  in  the 
doctor's  premises  is  the  total  want  of  discrimination  between 
the  different  dispensations  of  the  covenant  of  salvation,  all 
of  which  issued  from  the  personal  authority  of  Christ  as 
God.  And  thus  as  the  Mosaic  was  different  from  the 
Christian  dispensation,  so  John's  was  different  from  the 
Christian  baptism.  Had  John  received  his  commission 
from  Christ  in  person,  it  would  not  have  necessarily  fol- 
lowed from  this  fact  that  his  baptism  was  Christian  baptism, 
unless  Christ  had  specified  it  as  such;  but  since  he  did  not 
so  specify  it,  and  as,  from  the  reasons  already  given,  it  is 
seen  to  be  different  in  several  essential  particulars  from 
Christian  baptism,  the  premises  of  the  doctor  must  be  aban- 
doned as  wholly  untenable.  No  truth  is  more  evident  than 
that  a  common  origin  of  laws  and  institutes  does  not  neces- 
sarily constitute  them  the  same.  They  may  be  enacted  at 
different  times  and  for  different  purposes,  though  they  are 
all  invested  with  the  same  divine  authority,  and  are  suitable 
and  proper  no  longer  than  exigencies  require.  Thus,  the 
two  Christian  sacraments  are  invested  with  the  same 
authority,  and  are  of  perpetual  obligation ;  but  no  one  will 
pretend  that  they  are  the  same.     To  use  the  quotation  of 

"•••■  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  72.  f  Ibid.  p.  72. 


40  BAPTISM    NOT   PREREQUISITE 


the  doctor  from  St.  James,  ''there  is  one  Lawgiver;"  but 
his  laws  and  ordinances  are  not  by  consequence  necessarily 
the  same. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  distinction  between  John's  and 
Christian  baptism  is  maintained  by  all  the  ancient  fathers 
who  have  written  on  the  subject;  ''nor  would  it  be  easy  to 
discover  a  single  divine,  previous  to  the  Reformation/'  by 
whom  it  is  not  made;  "and  since  that  period  it  has  re- 
ceived the  sanction  of  a  Grotius,  a  Hammond,  a  Whitby, 
a  Doddridge,  a  Chillingworth,  and  a  multitude  of  other 
names  of  nearly  equal  celebrity."*  Thus,  the  supposed 
identity  of  the  two  dispensations  and  of  the  two  baptisms 
is  a  modern  innovation,  and  the  innovation  may  be  fairly 
ascribed  to  the  ingenuity  of  the  Baptist  Church  to  support 
its  claims. 

7.  In  the  case  of  the  sick.  If  baptism  be  indispensable 
to  communion,  and  immersion  be  indispensable  to  baptism, 
then  the  sick  on  a  dying  bed  cannot  be  baptized,  and  so 
must  be  deprived  of  the  precious  privilege  of  commemorating 
the  death  of  their  Lord  and  of  deriving  a  gracious  con- 
solation from  the  pious  service.  Mr.  Eemington,  in  his 
popular  little  Baptist  pamphlet,  admits  this.  "  I  know  it  may 
be  argued  that  the  sick  would,  under  these  circumstances, 
be  often  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  communion  while 
upon  their  dying  beds.  The  great  question  is,  Have  we 
Bible  authority  for  the  practice  ?  If  we  have  not,  then  we 
should  submit  with  pious  resignation.  It  is  a  very  great 
attainment  to  submit  patiently  to  suffer  the  will  of  God 
concerning  us.  The  hour  of  affliction  and  death,  of  all 
others,  is  the  one  when  we  should  rely  upon  Christ  alone. 
The  fewer  forms  we  have  to  attend  to  theji,  the  better. "-j- 
Is  it  possible  that  "the  Bible"  can  deny  a  Christian  the  pvi- 

•-■•  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  387.  f  Restricted  Communion,  p.  72. 


TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  41 


vilegG  of  communing  upon  a  sick  or  dying  bed?  What! 
'^ submit  with  pious  resignation"  to  be  disinherited  of  a 
most  sacred  privilege  upon  a  death-bed  ?  Is  this  '^suffering 
the  will  of  Grod  concerning  us"  ?  This  '^a  great  attainment" 
in  grace, — to  consent  to  be  deprived  of  grace?  The  "fewer 
forms"  in  the  sick  chamber,  or  on  the  death-bed,  "the 
better"?  Then  have  done  altogether  with  singing,  and 
prayer,  and  reading  God's  word,  and  instruction,  and  en- 
couragement, in  the  sick-room !  Christ  instituted  and  par- 
took of  the  sacrament  a  feio  lioiirs  before  his  death;  and 
why  may  not  his  dying  saints  do  the  same?  Would  not 
the  Baptists  administer  the  sacrament  to  a  sick  or  dying 
member  of  the  Baptist  Church?  Most  assuredly.  Alas! 
the  religious  system  must  be  radically  defective  in  the  par- 
ticular that  involves  such  severity  under  the  pretext  of 
"pious  resignation." 

We  conclude  this  chapter.  The  whole  controversy  turns 
on  the  necessary  dependence  of  the  Lord's  Supper  on 
baptism.  If  such  a  dependence  exists,  it  must  be  either  in 
the  inhei'ent.  connection  of  the  two  sacraments,  or  it  must  be 
made  hy positive  law, — neither  of  which,  we  have  seen,  is 
the  fact.  We  have  denied  that  immersion  is  essential  to 
baptism,  and  hence  have  assumed  that  Pedobaptists  have 
been  baptized,  and  so  are  members  of  the  visible  church, 
and  therefore,  upon  the  supposition  of  the  necessary  ante- 
cedence of  baptism  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  have  a  right 
to  the  latter  ordinance.  We  shall  not  stop  to  prove  that 
Pedobaptists  have  been  properly  baptized:  we  have  gone 
upon  the  supposition  that  they  are  not,  though  we  believe 
they  are  in  the  truest  scriptural  sense.  To  assume  that  they 
are  would  be  foreign  to  the  ground  we  take  in  this  treatise, 
and  would  be  an  end  of  the  controversy:  besides,  it  is  a 
matter  of  no  concern  to  Pedobaptists,  for  they  believe  that 
they  are  baptized.     But,  admitting  that  formal  association 

4* 


42  INVOLUNTARY   NEGLECT   OF   BArTTSM 


with  the  visible  church  depends  upon  baptism,  we  deny 
th;^t  there  is  such  a  dependence  of  the  Lord's  Supper  upon 
baptism  as  that  the  involuntary  neglect  of  baptism  destroys 
the  right,  or  annuls  the  obligation,  to  observe  the  Lord's 
Supper.     This  shall  be  the  subject  of  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  III. 


INVOLUNTARY    NEGLECT    OF    BAPTISM    NO    BAR    TO    SACRA- 
MENTAL   COMMUNION. 

The  doctrine  of  close  communion  is  founded  upon  a  mis- 
conception of  the  import  of  baptism,  and  so  is  a  misappli- 
cation of  one  of  the  sacraments  to  the  abuse  of  the  other. 
This  is  easily  demonstrated. 

Baptism  signifies  obligations  and  rights  already  existing 
in  the  subject.  Mark  this.  It  gives  no  right  and  imposes 
no  obligation  that  does  not  already  exist  in  the  subject. 
With  respect  to  the  believer,  we  are  all  agreed;  and  the 
question  before  us  refers  to  the  believer  only,  for  believers 
only  have  a  right  to  the  communion.  The  believer,  though 
unbaptized^  has  a  right  to  the  communion  before  he  is 
baptized,  and  therefore  baptism  cannot  give  him  a  right  to 
the  communion  :  baptism  only  signifies  the  believer*s  right 
to  the  communion.  And  hence  a  person  baptized  in  infancy 
has  no  right  to  the  communion  till  he  has  believed.  Infant 
baptism  involves  pvospectivelij  faith  as  prerequisite  to  the 
communion.  In  all  cases,  then,  the  right  to  the  communion 
is  obtained  hy  faith,  and  not  by  baptism.  Admitting,  then, — 
which  we  do  not  by  any  means, — that  infant  baptism  is  a 
nullity,  and  that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism,  the 
believer  has  a  right  to  the  communion  before  he  is  baptized. 
This  is  clear. 


NO    BAR    TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  43 


Next :  the  obligation  of  the  believer  to  observe  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  exists  before  he  is  baptized  : 
baptism  only  signifies  this  obligation  as  already  existing, — 
does  not  originate  it,  since  it  cannot  originate  what  already 
exists.  Infant  baptism  involves  this  obligation  prospectively  ; 
that  is,  upon  the  exercise  of  faith.  In  all  cases,  then,  the 
obligation  to  observe  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
involved  in  faith  and  not  in  baptism.  Admitting,  then, — 
which  we  do  not  by  any  means, — that  infant  baptism  is  a 
nullity,  and  that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism,  the 
believer  is  under  obligation  to  observe  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  before  he  is  baptized.     This  also  is  clear. ' 

Now,  setting  aside  infant  baptism  altogether,  and  admit- 
ting that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism,  the  believer  has 
a  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  obligation  to  observe 
that  sacred  ordinance  exists,  before  he  is  baptized.  The 
Baptists  themselves  must  admit  this.  Very  well.  But 
does  the  want  of  the  sign,  in  all  cases,  invalidate  a  right 
and  absolve  from  an  obligation  already  existing?  If  so, 
then  faith  also  is  destroyed;  for  faith  gives  the  right  and 
imposes  the  obligation.  But  pious  Pedobaptists  do  yet 
believe,  and  that,  too,  till  they  die,  the  Baptists  themselves 
being  judges.  Therefore  their  right  to  the  Lord's  table  is 
not  invalidated,  nor  are  they  absolved  from  obligation  to 
observe  that  sacred  ordinance,  though  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Baptists  they  have  never  been  baptized.  If  such  is  their 
right  and  such  their  obligation,  then  baptism  in  all  cases 
is  not  indispensably  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
That  is,  a  right  and  obligation  existing  before  baptism 
cannot  be  set  aside  in  all  cases  by  the  want  of  baptism. 
To  say  that  pedobaptism  is  no  baptism  at  all  does  not  meet 
the  difficulty;  for  with  pious  Pedobaptists  the  right  and 
obligation  still  exist,  for  they  yet  believe.  True,  if  the 
believer   knowingly  and    deliberately   neglect   baptism,  he 


44  INVOLUNTARY    NEGLECT    OF    BAPTISM 


sets  aside  his  faith,  and  ia  doing  this  he  forfeits  his  right 
to  the  Lord's  table  and  viohites  his  obligation  to  observe 
that  sacred  ordinance;  for  it  is  the  solemn  and  positive 
duty  of  the  unbaptized  believer  to  be  baptized.  But  candid 
Baptists  have  never  directly  charged  wilful  neglect  upon 
pious  Pedobaptist  churches, — never;  and  it  can  never 
be  justly  alleged  against  them.  Then,  whether  pious  Pedo- 
baptist churches  have  been  baptized  or  not,  they  have  a 
right  to  the  Lord's  table  and  are  bound  to  observe  that 
sacred  ordinance.  If  so,  the  Baptists  cannot  justly  repel 
them  from  sacramental  communion,  since  no  human  au- 
thority can  transcend  divine  authority  or  clash  with  rights 
secured  and  obligations  imposed  by  divine  authority.  The 
Baptists  may  involuntarily  and  conscientiously  oppose  the 
authority  of  God,  and  clash  with  the  rights  and  obligations 
of  their  pious  Pedobaptist  brethren;  but  they  cannot  justly 
do  either. 

In  this  argument  we  have  proceeded  upon  the  admission 
that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism,  and  therefore  that 
pedobaptism  is  no  baptism.  But  this  indeed  we  do  not 
admit;  and  assuming — which  we  do — that  pedobaptism 
is  valid  baptism,  then,  if  baptism  is  indispensably  pre- 
requisite to  sacramental  communion,  pious  Pedobaptists 
have  a  right  to  it  obtained  by  faith  and  signified  by  bap- 
tism. In  a  word :  on  the  one  hand,  if  baptism  be  not  indis- 
pensably prerequisite  to  the  communion,  the  Baptists  must 
show  that  Pedobaptists  are  not  believers  before  they  can 
deny  their  right  to  the  Lord's  table;  but  the  Baptists  admit 
that  Pedobaptists  are  believers.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
baptism  he  indispensably  prerequisite  to  the  communion, 
the  Baptists  must  prove  that  pedobaptism  is  no  baptism 
before  they  can  deny  the  right  of  pious  Pedobaptists  to  the 
Lord's  table ;  but  this  they  have  not  done.  Thus,  whether 
pedobaptism  be  right  or  wrong,  pious  Pedobaptists  have  a 


NO    BAR    TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  45 


right  to  sacramental  communion^  and  tliey  are  bound   to 
observe  it. 

If  the  involuntary  neglect  of  one  ordinance  does  not 
necessarily  involve  the  forfeiture  of  the  thing  signified  by 
another  ordinance,  then  there  can  be  no  necessary  depend- 
ence of  the  latter  upon  the  former.  That  is,  if  Pedobap- 
tists  have  the  thing  signified  by  baptism,  and  in  the  involun- 
tary neglect  of  baptism  yet  retain  what  is  signified  by  bap- 
tism, and  forfeit  not  what  is  signified  by  the  Lord's  Supper, 
there  can  be  no  necessary  dependence  of  the  latter  upon  the 
former.  The  involuntary  neglect  of  the  sign  in  one  case 
does  not  result  in  the  forfeiture  of  the  thing  signified  in 
either  case.  The  involuntary  neglect  of  baptism  does  not 
destroy  the  right  to  baptism,  for  the  thing  signified  by 
baptism  still  remains ;  and  of  course,  the  right  to  baptism 
still  remaining,  God  consequently  regards  his  injunction  of 
baptism  as  having  been  virtually  and  substantially,  though 
not  formally,  obeyed.  If,  however,  the  neglect  of  baptism 
is  voluntar}^,  and  proceeds  from  a  criminal  motive,  and  is 
accompanied  with  a  clear  conviction  of  its  divine  authority, 
in  this  case  the  right  of  the  person  to  communion  is  denied; 
for  thereby  his  right  to  baptism  is  forfeited,  because  the 
thing  signified  in  both  sacraments  is  forfeited.  But,  when 
the  thing  signified  in  both  sacraments  is  not  forfeited  by  an 
involuntary  neglect  of  one  of  the  sacraments,  no  argument 
can  prove  that  the  person  has  not  a  right  to  the  other  sacra- 
ment, unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  involuntary  neglect 
of  the  sign  in  one  sacrament  results  in  the  forfeiture  of  the 
thing  signified  in  both  sacraments, — which  the  Baptists  do 
not  pretend,  and  never  can  prove,  is  the  case  with  pious 
Pedobaptists.  What,  then,  is  signified  by  each  of  the  two 
sacraments  ?  and  have  pious  Pedobaptists  the  thing  signified 
in  each  of  them?  Baptism  is  the  symbol  of  inward  and 
spiritual  purification  :  pious  Pedobaptists  have  this.     The 


46  INVOLUNTARY    NEGLECT   OF   BAPTISM 


Lord's  Supper  is  the  pledge  of  the  Savior's  love  :  that  pious 
Pedobaptists  enjoy  this  no  one  questions.  It  is  the  evi- 
dence of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Savior's  presence  with  his 
people  :  that  Christ  is  with  pious  Pedobaptists  the  Baptists 
themselves  do  not  deny.  It  is  the  symbol  of  the  vital  com- 
munion of  Christians  with  the  Savior :  that  pious  Pedobap- 
tists enjoy  this  communion  in  the  largest  sense  the  Baptists 
themselves  admit.  In  a  word,  that  pious  Pedobaptists 
possess,  whole  and  entire,  the  things  signified  in  baptism 
and  the  eucharist,  the  Baptists  themselves  cheerfully  con- 
cede. Now,  if  the  involuntary  neglect  of  the  sign  in  one 
case  does  not  involve  the  forfeiture  of  the  things  signified 
in  either  case,  (and  the  Baptists  concede  that  the  facts 
evince  that  it  does  not,)  it  follows  incontestably  that  there 
is  no  necessary  dependence  of  one  of  the  signs  upon  the 
other,  unless  the  absence  of  the  sign  in  one  case  necessarily 
involves  the  absence  of  the  substance  in  both  cases, — which 
the  Baptists  do  not  pretend,  and  never  can  prove,  is  the 
fact  with  pious  Pedobaptists. 

The  divine  sanction  of  sacramental  communion  by  the 
Pedobaptists  is  a  convincing  proof  that  Pedobaptists  are 
properly  baptized,  or,  if  they  are  not  baptized,  a  convincing 
refutation  of  the  conceit  that  baptism  is  divinely  prescribed 
as  an  indispensable  condition  to  sacramental  communion. 
<'  Communion,^'  says  Dr.  Howell,  "  has  its  laws,  by  which  it 
must  in  all  respects  be  governed.  To  violate  them  in  its 
observance  is  a  contempt  of  the  authority  from  which  they 
emanated;  and,  in  consequence  of  such  dereliction,  where 
it  exists,  this  part  of  sacred  devotion  ceases  at  once  to  be 
an  act  of  either  faith,  obedience,  or  worship.'^*  Here  we 
join  close  issue  with  the  doctor.  Would  it  not  be  infatua- 
tion to  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  confer  his  blessing 

*  Terms  of  Communion,  p.  116. 


NO    BAR    TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  47 


upon  an  act  of  devotion  that  was  a  ''  contempt"  of  Christ, 
a  '^dereliction"  of  duty,  and  destitute  of  '^  f\iith,  obedience, 
or  worship"  ?  And  would  it  not  also  be  infatuation  to  say 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  in  a  signal  manner  confer  his 
blessing  upon  Pedobaptists  in  sacramental  communion  ? 
The  strictest  Baptist  in  Christendom,  whose  opinion  is 
worthy  of  consideration,  will  not  assert  either  of  these.  If, 
then,  "communion  has  its  laws,  by  which  it  must  in  all 
respects  be  governed,"  it  follows  that  the  Holy  Spirit  sanc- 
tions, in  the  case  of  pious  Pedobaptists  communing,  a  con- 
tempt of  Christ,  a  dereliction  of  duty,  and  an  act  destitute 
of  faith,  obedience,  and  worship,  or  that  Pedobaptists  are 
properly  baptized ;  or,  if  they  are  not  baptized,  baptism  is 
not  an  indispensable  condition  to  sacramental  communion. 

The  Baptists  assume  that  in  excluding  Pedobaptists  from 
communion  they  do  as  the  apostles  would  have  done.  This 
amounts  to  a  claim  to  infallibility,  though  they  do  not 
attempt  to  evince  their  possession  of  this  extraordinary  gift. 

Suppose  Jesus  and  his  apostles  should  now  appear  among 
men,  and  on  a  sacramental  occasion  in  some  pious  Pedo- 
baptist  church  this  blessed  company  should  surround  the 
sacred  table  with  the  members  of  this  church,  and  Christ 
and  his  apostles  distribute  the  elements  to  the  happy  and 
grateful  recipients.  A  Baptist — the  most  pious  and  ^' loyal" 
Baptist  in  the  land — enters  and  beholds  the  scene.  There 
is  Christ,  who  gave  ''  the  commission ;"  there  are  the 
apostles,  who  received,  preached,  and  acted  under  the 
commission;  there  is  Paul,  the  chief  of  the  apostles, — all 
communing  with  "  unbaptized"  Christians  !  Christ  invites 
the  wondering  Baptist  to  a  place  at  his  table  and  a-  seat 
among  his  apostles  and  disciples.  The  Baptist  for  a  moment 
hesitates,  and  inquires,  ''Am  I  deceived?  No;  I  cannot 
bo.  That  is  Christ,  those  are  his  apostles;  for  I  have  just 
seen  and  communed  with  them  in  my  own  church.     If  I 


48  INVOLUNTARY    NEGLECT   OF   BAPTISM 


am  mistaken  now,  I  was  mistaken  then.  They  are  as  really 
here  in  this  Pedobaptist  church  as  they  were  with  us  in  the 
Baptist  church.  They  said  nothing  about  this  intended 
visit  to  the  Pedobaptist  church  •  and,  while  I  expected  to 
find  them  in  the  preaching,  praying,  and  singing  in  this 
place,  I  did  not  expect  to  find  them  engaged  in  cele- 
brating the  Sacred  Supper  with  these  Christians.  One 
thing  to  my  mind  now  is  certain  :  either  these  Pedobaptist 
Christians  have  been  properly  baptized,  or  baptism  is  not, 
as  I  supposed,  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's 
Supper.  No  matter  which  :  I  will  doubt,  hesitate,  no  more. 
Though  they  are  not  of  '  our  faith  and  order/  Christ  and 
his  apostles  of  a  truth  are  with  them.  That  is  enough  :  I 
will  join  them  in  the  sacramental  service,  teach  my  church 
as  it  may,"" 

Say  not  that  this  is  fancy,  for  it  is  all  as  spiritual/?/  true 
as  if  it  had  transpired  before  us  in  open  day.  Baptists 
have  been  present  as  spectators  on  sacramental  occasions  in 
pious  Pedobaptist  churches ;  and  what  have  they  beheld  ? 
Peace,  and  joy,  and  comfort,  and  love,  diflfused  around  the 
happy  family  and  beaming  from  many  a  bright  countenance. 
Tears  and  smiles  of  joy  were  mingled,  and  shouts  and  songs 
were  blended.  The  tide  of  gushing  rapture  swelled  and 
overflowed  all  its  bounds,  and  thrilling  praise  burst  from 
every  lip.  The  scene  was  solemn,  the  place  was  awful,  the 
service  holy  and  blessed.  This  is  wonderful.  The  pious 
Baptist  exclaims,  '^  This  is  wonderful.  Surely  Grod  is  in 
this  place.  Christ  must  be  with  this  people.  The  Holy 
Spirit  must  be  with  this  people.  They  have  the  spirit  of 
the  apostles.  Am  I  mistaken  ?  No ;  I  am  not  mistaken  ; 
for  this  is  just  such  a  scene  as  I  have  witnessed  around  the 
sacramental  table  in  my  own  church.  If  I  am  mistaken 
now,  I  was  mistaken  in  my  own  church.  Christ  is  as  really 
here  in  a  spiritual  manner  and  power  as  he  is  with  us  in 


NO    BAR    TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  49 


the  Baptist  Church.  These  Christians  here  are  as  sincere 
as  we  are  :  this  is  no  hypocrisy.  No ;  '  in  -the  Pedobaptist 
churches  there  are  some  of  the  noblest  lights  and  ornaments 
that  adorn  Christianity.'*  ^  Their  zeal;  devotion,  and 
efficiency  fill  me  with  admiration  and  joy.'f  '  They  are 
knit  together  with  me  by  a  union  not  imaginary,  but  most 
sweet  and  dear  and  imperishable,  against  which  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail.  I  delight  to  feel  myself  one  with 
them,  one  in  spirit,  one  in  aim,  one  in  ^'  a  good  hope 
through  grace,''  one  in  Clirist,  one  in  a  fellowship  of  soul 
with  soul,  one  in  a  spiritual  communion,  which  neither 
walls,  nor  mountains,  nor  oceans,  nor  ages,  can  separate.'^ 
No ;  they  are  not  deceived.  *  I  cherish  for  them,  as  the 
people  of  God,  the  sincerest  affection  :  we  preach,  pray,  and 
labor  together;  consult  and  co-operate  for  the  spread  of  the 
gospel;  and  take  pleasure  in  being  associated  with  them  "in 
every  good  word  and  work." '§  Yes;  they  are  as  sincere 
as  I  am.  Though  Christ  is  not  with  them  in  person  as  he 
was  with  his  disciples  when  he  instituted  the  eucharist  in 
Jerusalem,  he  certainly  is  with  them  in  his  Spirit  as  really 
as  if  he  were  present  with  them  in  person  before  my  eyes.  If 
Christ  is  not  here  in  his  Spirit,  then  I  know  not  that  he  is  ever 
present  in  the  Baptist  Church  or  anywhere  else  in  the  world 
on  sacramental  occasions ;  and  hence  what  avails  the  force 
of  the  indispensable  prerequisite  which  my  church  teaches  ? 
I  see  no  advantage  in  it  in  this  case.  It  is  nothing  in  this 
case.  One  thing  to  my  mind  is  now  certain  :  either  these 
Pedobaptist  Christians  have  been  properly  baptized,  or 
baptism  is  not,  as  I  supposed,  an  indispensable  prerequisite 
to  the  Lord's  Supper.  No  matter  which :  I  can  doubt, 
hesitate,  no  more.     Though  they  are  not  of  ^  our  faith  and 


*  R.  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  p.  238.  flbid.  p.  246. 

X  Ibid.  pp.  220,  221.  ^  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  23. 

5 


50  INVOLUNTARY    NEGLECT   OF   BAPTISM 


order/  Christ  of  a  truth  is  with  them.  That  is  enough  :  I 
will  join  them  in  the  sacramental  service,  teach  my  church 
as  it  may/'  Well  done  !  that  is  consistent, — consistent 
with  the  merits  of  the  Pedobaptists  and  the  concessions  of 
the  Baptists.  You  may  innocently  hold  to  immersion  if  you 
see  proper;  but  you  cannot  on  that  account  innocently  repel 
or  refuse  commune  with  those  who  before  your  eyes  have 
the  presence  of  the  Son  of  God  in  obeying  his  command, 
^^  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me/'  If  my  sect  required 
otherwise,  /would  regard  the  requisition  as  wrong  and  the 
ground  of  the  requisition  false.  I  must  place  Christ  first, 
all  the  way  and  all  the  time.  My  conduct,  whole  and 
entire,  must  be  shaped  and  governed  by  his  clear  and 
undoubted  indications,  however  "painful"  it  may  be  to  me 
to  clash  with  the  '^  faith  and  order"  of  my  sect.  I  should 
rather  consider  it  '^  painful"  to  resist  Him  than  to  vary 
from  useless  and  inconsistent  rules  of  my  sect.  I  will  not 
consider  myself  dishonored,  or  as  bringing  a  reproach  upon 
his  church,  or  as  condemnable  in  the  sight  of  God,  by  being 
found  with  Christ  anywliere^  on  any  occasion,  in  any 
service,  or  with  any  people,  however  poor,  obscure,  and 
despised  by  the  world.  No  human  authority  shall  hold  me 
responsible  to  dishonor  Christ,  or  his  people,  or  his  cause, 
under  any  pretence  or  assumptions  whatever ;  and,  if  others 
venture  to  do  otherwise,  the  final  settlement  is  with  God, 
who  superintends  his  cause  and  his  people. 

''  If  it  still  be  contended  that  the  two  cases  are  so  parallel 
that  the  proceeding  of  the  apostles  in  this  particular  is  bind- 
ing as  a  law,  we  would  once  more  ask  such  as  adopt  this 
plea  whether  they  themselves  form  the  same  judgment  of 
the  present  Pedobaptists  as  the  apostles  would  have  enter- 
tained of  such  as  continued  unbaptized  in  their  day?  If 
they  reply  in  the  af&rmative,  they  must  consider  them  as 
iiisincere,  hypocritical  professors.     If  they  answer  in  the 


NO    BAR    TO    SACRAMENTAL   COMMUNION.  51 


Degative,  since,  by  their  own  confession,  they  look  upon  the 
persons  whom  they  exclude  in  a  different  light  from  that  in 
which  the  party  excluded  by  the  apostles  was  cousitlered, 
what  becomes  of  the  identity  of  the  two  cases  ?  and  what 
greater  right  have  they  to  tliinh  differently  of  the  state  of 
the  uubaptized  from  what  the  apostles  thought  than  we 
have  ioi  treatinc)  \\iQ\Q.  differently  ?''*  Were  the  apostles 
present,  and  should  they  inform  pious  Pedobaptists  that 
they  are  in  error  on  the  subject  of  baptism  and  that  the 
Baptists  are  right  on  that  subject,  they  would  correct  their 
error;  but,  if  they  are  in  error,  they  have  at  present  no 
means  of  information  beyond  what  they  have  already  faith- 
fully and  conscientiously  used,  with  all  the  lights  the  Bap- 
,tists  have  so  sedulously  furnished.  Imagine  a  similar  case 
before  the  apostles  in  their  days.  Mr.  Hall  proposes  the 
case  : — "  Many  whom  you  exclude  from  your  communion 
as  unbaptized  you  acknowledge  as  Christians,  and,  without 
hesitation,  express  your  confidence  of  meeting  them  in  glory. 
Did  the  apostles  entertain  the  same  judgment  respecting 
such  in  their  day?  Were  they  prepared  to  recognise  them 
as  brethren,  and  to  congratulate  them  on  their  eternal  pros- 
pects, while  they  repelled  them  from  communion  V^\  If 
it  be  affirmed  that  the  case  of  pious  Pedobaptists  never 
occurred  in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  then  the  Baptists 
cannot  plead  apostolic  precedent  for  excluding  pious  Pedo- 
baptists from  communion  ?  Or,  if  it  be  admitted  that  the 
apostles  would  not  have  excluded  such  a  case  from  com- 
munion, then  the  Baptists  stand  self-convicted  of  opposition 
to  apostolic  principles.  Or,  if  it  be  assumed  that  the 
apostles  would  have  excluded  pious  Pedobaptists  from  com- 
munion, then  it  behooves  the  Baptists  to  show  on  what 

*  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  410.  f  Ibid.  p.  411. 


52  INVOLUNTARY    NEGLECT    OF    BAPTISM 


ground  the  apostles  would  have  regarded  genuine  Christians 
as  unworthy  of  communion. 

"We  close  this  chapter  with  a  quotation  from  3Ir.  Hall : — 
^'  Say,  did  the  apostles  refuse  the  communion  of  good  men? 
Did  they  set  the  example  of  dividing  them  into  two  classes, 
— a  qualified  and  a  disqualified  class, — and,  while  they 
acknowledged  the  latter  were  objects  of  the  divine  favor 
equally  with  themselves,  enjoin  on  their  converts  the  duty 
of  disowning  them  at  the  Lord's  table  ?  Are  any  traces  to 
be  discovered  in  the  New  Testament  of  a  society  of  Purists, 
who,  under  the  pretence  of  superior  illumination  on  one 
subject,  kept  themselves  aloof  from  the  Christian  world, 
excluding  from  their  communion  myriads  of  those  whom 
they  believed  to  be  heirs  of  salvation  V^^' 


CHAPTER  IV. 


INVOLUNTARY    NEGLECT    OF  BAPTISM    NO    BAR   TO    SACRA- 
MENTAL  COMMUNION,    (CONTINUED.) 

We  continue  the  subject  of  the  preceding  chapter. 

If  baptism  is  indispensably  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  then,  we  repeat,  it  remains  to  be  proved  that  Pedo- 
baptists  are  not  baptized  before  they  can  be  excluded  from 
the  observance  of  that  ordinance.  But,  waiving  in  this 
treatise  all  discussion  on  this  topic,  we  will  admit  that  the 
Pedobaptists  are  not  baptized,  and  then  assume  that  their 
involuntary  neglect  of  baptism  is  not  a  just  ground  of 
exclusion  from  the  Lord's  table. 

The    amount  of  the    offending  of  the    excluded   pious 

^  Hall's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  222. 


NO    BAR    TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION.  53 


churchQS  is  this  : — They  do  not  believe  as  the  Baptists  do 
in  regard  to  baptism.  They  differ  from  the  Baptists  only 
with  respect  to  the  mere  mode  of  baptism.  What  they  do 
they  do  in  the  spirit  of  sincere  obedience  and  love,  as  their 
lives  and  labors  abundantly  prove.  If  they  believed  that 
immersion  is  indispensable  to  baptism,  they  would  practise 
it ;  or  that  infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  or  that  it  is  not  sus- 
tained by  the  Bible,  they  would  abandon  it.  They  cannot 
conscientiously  embrace  immersion  as  the  only  mode  of  bap- 
tism. If  in  error  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  they  have 
involuntarily  committed  the  error;  and  that  such  a  mistake 
or  misconception  of  duty  is  not  a  sufficient  ground  for 
exclusion  from  sacramental  communion,  we  appeal  to  the 
Scriptures. 

1.  ^'Let  not  him  who  eateth  despise  him  who  eateth  not; 
and  let  not  him  who  eateth  not  judge  him  who  eateth;  for 
God  hath  received  him.  To  his  own  master  he  standeth  or 
falleth.  Yea,  he  shall  be  holden  up;  for  God  is  able  to  make 
him  stand.  \Yherefore  receive  ye  one  another,  as  Christ 
hath  received  us  to  the  glory  of  the  Father.^'  (Bom.  xiv. 
3—4,  XV.  7.)  This  is  the  law  of  mutual  toleration  among 
Christians  and  Christian  churches  who  may  differ  on  account 
of  religious  scruples,  prejudices,  and  errors  that  do  not 
involve  any  thing  essential  to  salvation.  "  Grod  is  able  to 
make''  all  such  "  stand,"  so  that  they  shall  not  essentially 
err,  and  so  may  be  continued  and  recognised  as  members  of 
his  church.  "  God  hath  received  him ;  God  is  able  to  make 
him  stand;"  and  therefore  he  should  be  ^^ received"  by 
his  brethren  ^^  to  the  glory  of  the  Father,''  because  it  is 
honoring  God  to  receive  those  whom  he  receives. 

Mr.  Fuller  replies : — "  Christian  churches  are  to  receive  all 

whom  God  has  received,  icho  are  conscientious,  and  lohose 

•peculiarities  are  not  subvei^sive  of  any  existing  divine  law. 

But  what  then  ?     Does  this  rule  enjoin  the  reception  of 

5-^^ 


54  INVOLUNTARY    NEGLECT    OF    BAPTISM 


pious  Pedobaptists  ?  Let  us  examine.  Has  God  received 
them  ?  He  has.  Are  they  conscientious  ?  They  are.  Is 
their  peculiarity  subversive  of  any  existing  divine  law  ?  In 
the  opinion  of  every  Baptist,  it  is.  Consequently,  their  re- 
ception into  Baptist  churches  would  be,  on  the  part  of  the 
receiving  members,  a  deviation  from  the  principle."*  But 
it  is  impossible  for  God  to  ^^ receive"  and  hold  up  any 
"  whose  peculiarities  are  subversive  of'^  any  ^^  existing  divine 
law"  essential  to  salvation ;  for  this  would  be  saving  man 
in  opposition  to  the  divine  government.  But  '^  God  has 
received,"  and  '^is  able  to  make,"  pious  Pedobaptists 
"  stand," — Mr.  Fuller  being  judge.  Therefore  'Hhe  pecu- 
liarities" of  the  Pedobaptists  are  not  ^^  subversive  of  any 
existing  divine  law"  essential  to  salvation.  Besides,  the 
reception  of  pious  Pedobaptists  to  sacramental  communion 
in  the  Baptist  churches  would  not  be  subversive  of  any 
existing  law  essential  to  salvation  in  the  Baptist  Church ;  for 
the  Baptists  do  not  hold  that  immersion  is  essential  to 
salvation,  since  they  admit  that  God  does  "receive"  and 
^^  is  able"  to  save  pious  Pedobaptists  without  immersion. 
And,  further,  they  might  receive  pious  Pedobaptists  to  sacra- 
mental communion  without  subverting  any  existing  law  in  the 
Baptist  Church,  since  they  might  still  maintain  and  practise 
immersion  among  themselves  as  a  favorite  and  non-essential 
peculiarity;  for  favorite  indeed  it  is,  and  that  it  is  not  es- 
sential to  salvation  they  admit.  In  this  argument  we  have 
proceeded  upon  the  admission  that  pious  Pedobaptists  are 
the  weak  in  faith  ^^whom  God  has  received"  and  whom  he 
"  is  able  to  save ;"  but  this  is  the  ground  the  Baptists  as- 
sume, and  which  we  have  admitted  only  to  prove  from  it 
the  right  of  pious  Pedobaptists  to  sacramental  communion 
in  Baptist  churches.     It  is  not  maintained  that  pious  Pedo- 

*  Fuller  on  Commnnion.  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  p.  2G7. 


NO    BAR    TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION. 


baptists  have  a  right  to  the  conventional  privileges  of  the 
Baptist  Church,  but  only  to  those  privileges  which  are  com- 
mon to  all  Christians  without  distinction  of  name  or  partA'. 
The  Baptists  make  that  a  term  of  admission  to  the  Lord's 
table  which  they  admit  is  not  essential  to  admission  into 
heaven.  They  render  access  to  the  Lord's  table  more  diffi- 
cult than  access  to  the  Lord  himself,  and  association  with 
^'  the  general  assembly  of  the  church  of  the  first-born  and 
spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect."  They  surround  the 
Lord's  table  with  an  enclosure  impassable  to  those  whom 
God  will  welcome  to  his  presence.  Pious  Pedobaptists, 
then,  have  the  sanction,  favor,  and  pledge  of  God :  that  is 
enough. 

^^  Receive  him  to  the  glory  of  God."  On  this  injunction 
Bunyan  comments  : — ''To  the  glory  of  God  is  put  on  pur- 
pose to  show  what  dishonor  they  bring  to  God  who  despise 
to  have  communion  with  them  who  yet  they  know  have 
communion  with  God.  For  how  doth  this  man  or  that 
church  glorify  God,  or  count  the  wisdom  and  holiness  of 
heaven  beyond  them,  when  they  refuse  communion  with 
them  concerning  whom  they  are  by  the  word  convinced 
that  they  have  communion  with  God?"* 

2.  '•  For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth 
any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature;  and  as 
many  as  walk  according  to  this  rule,  peace  be  on  them,  and 
mercy,  and  upon  the  Israel  of  God.""  (Gal.  vi.  15.)  The 
argument  of  the  apostle  is  this :  Under  the  gospel  system 
no  outward  observance  avails  any  thing  with  God,  but  a  new 
creature;  and  he  who  is  a  new  creature  is  entitled  to  the 
peace  and  mercy  of  God.  This  is  the  rule ;  and,  where  this 
rule  is  conformed  to,  involuntary  error  respecting  baptism, 
consequently,  can  be  no  barrier  to  the  peace  and  mercy  of 

*  Banyan's  Complete  Works  :  Reasons  for  Practice  in  Worship,  p.  218. 


56       INVOLUNTARY  NEGLECT  OP  BAPTISM 


God ;  and  so  the  want  of  baptism  in  this  case  can  be  no 
barrier  to  sacramental  communion. 

3.  "  Hast  thou  faith  ?  Have  it  to  thyself  before  God." 
(Rom.  xiv.  22.)  That  this  admits  of  difference  in  opinion, 
and  does  not  exclude  from  sacramental  communion,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  following  considerations.  No  one  that  has 
this  faith  is  bound  to  bring  others  who  have  the  same  faith 
over  to  his  opinions  in  order  to  their  communing  with  him 
or  his  communing  with  them.  If  this  were  so,  then  those  of 
this  opinion  might  form  one  church,  and  those  of  that 
opinion  might  form  another  church,  and  each  claim  to  be 
the  one  church  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other, — which  is  ab- 
surd :  each  claiming  to  be  in  "■  the  unity  of  the  Spirit,'^ 
and  yet  one  saying.  We  will  not  commune  with  you,  and  the 
other  saying,  We  will  not  commune  with  you,  and  yet  we 
will  live  in  "peace,'^ — which  is  absurd,  since  Christ's  church 
cannot  have  two  spirits,  nor  his  body  two  Heads.  Further : 
a  new  opinion  is  started,  and  becomes  the  foundation  of  a 
new  division,  and  so  on,  till  presently  the  one  church  must 
be  dissolved  into  as  many  churches  as  there  are  individuals 
in  the  church, — for  no  two  men  on  earth  are  of  the  same 
mind  in  all  things.  No  force  can  prevent  an  endless  variety 
of  opinions  in  erring  and  speculative  man;  and,  if  the  prin- 
ciple of  strict  communion  be  admitted,  endless  strifes  and 
janglings  must  arise,  and  ^^ altar  be  set  up  against  altar'' 
without  end.  A  church  so  divided  would  be  an  easy  con- 
quest to  the  enemy,  and  where  it  tends  to  this  state  it  is 
tending  to  dissolution.  A  house  so  divided  cannot  stand; 
and  churches  so  related,  though  they  now  practise  ordinary 
Christian  intercourse,  will  in  time  renounce  even  that ;  for 
emulations  and  bitter  zeal  will  soon  result  in  an  entire  sepa- 
ration. The  sure  defence  against  all  these  evils  is  the 
one  saving  faith,  that  admits  of  reciprocal  communion  in- 
dependent of  difference  in  opinion.     If  men  agree  in  faith, 


NO    BAR    TO    SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNION. 


arc  united  in  faith,  have  all  this  saving  faith,  in  a  small  or 
larger  degree,  no  matter  for  variety  of  opinions,  they  are 
all  equally  entitled  to  sacramental  communion.  This  ar- 
gument is  rendered  the  stronger  by  the  consideration  that 
the  opinions,  in  themselves,  which  are  made  the  ground  of 
divisions,  are  harmless,  compared  with  the  evils  of  mutual 
renunciation  and  opposition.  ^'  Hast  thou  faith  ?  Have  it 
to  thyself  before  God.^'  Leave  opinions  in  themselves  not 
fundamental,  and  hence  not  fatal  to  those  who  have  faith 
in  God,  to  others,  and,  on  faith  as  a  common  ground,  en- 
gage in  sacramental  communion  with  them.  Sacramental 
communion  cannot  impair  the  faith  of  either  party,  but  must 
promote  it,  especially  when  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  the  nature  and  design  of  that  ordinance,  the  Lord's 
Supper, — both  parties,  all  parties,  meeting  and  harmonizing 
in  faith  and  opinion  in  the  observance  of  that  ordinance. 
It  may  be  observed  that  those  churches  which  impose  the 
fewest  and  simplest  terms  of  communion  besides  what  are 
fundamental  come  nearest  the  prescription  of  the  apostle, 
and  those  which  impose  no  terms  of  communion  but  what 
are  fundamental  conform  fully  to  his  prescription.  Li  the 
latter  case  the  command  of  the  apostle  may  be  fulfilled  by 
every  believer  on  earth, — not  excluding  the  weakest  believer 
in  the  church.  Schism  is  then  at  an  end.  Those  involun- 
tarily in  error  may  then  learn  better  in  time,  and,  if 
opinions  are  not  rectified,  it  will  be  of  no  great  conse- 
quence, since  errors  in  themselves  not  fundamental  can 
finally  hurt  no  one  who  involuntarily  and  sincerely  embraces 
them.  But  if  I  am  required  to  embrace  an  opinion  which 
I  do  not  believe  to  be  true,  or  I  must  be  excluded  from  the 
communion,  then  to  be  admitted  to  the  communion  is  to 
affirm  what  I  conscientiously  believe  to  be  a  falsehood,  and, 
though  it  may  be  true,  I  am  guilty  of  hypocrisy  in  the 
sight  of  God.      An   opinion  which   may  be  believed   by 


58  INVOLUNTARY   NEGLECT   OF   BAPTISM,  ETC. 


others,  and  in  itself  may  be  true,  I  may  believe  to  be  false ; 
and  unless  my  belief  in  that  opinion,  as  preliminary  to 
sacramental  communion,  be  waived,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
schisms  without  end  may  become  necessary;  and  the 
responsibility  for  the  consequences  lies  upon  those  churches 
in  whose  constitutions  the  severe  exactions  are  made,  because 
the  reception  of  one  to  the  communion  whose  opinion  was 
not  fundamental  would  not  have  necessarily  made  any 
schism  in  the  church;  and  the  smaller  the  difference  in 
opinion  the  greater  the  sin  and  the  shame,  for  the  less  is 
the  reason  for  separate  communions.  And  where  agreement 
in  the  great  fundamentals  of  religion  is  complete,  or  nearly 
so,  and  Christian  fellowship  actually,  or  at  least  confessedly, 
extends  to  every  particular,  except  in  the  observance  of  a 
solitary  observance,  and  a  difference — and  that  but  a  slight 
difference — respecting  the  mere  mode  of  observing  a  duty 
is  made  by  one  church  the  ground  of  exclusion  from 
sacramental  communion,  no  justification  in  reason  or  in 
Scripture  can  be  found  for  the  requisition;  and  that  church 
is  justly  chargeable  with  the  consequences  of  excluding  from 
communion  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world. 

4.  ^'  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me.''  Is  it  conceivable 
how  Christ  calls  by  his  Spirit  and  blesses  with  his  grace 
those  whom  he  repels  from  his  table  ?  Does  he  not  invite 
to  his  table  those  whom  he  calls  by  his  Spirit  ?  Does  he 
command  those  to  partake  sacramentally  of  his  supper  whose 
faith  he  has  accepted  and  whose  nature  he  has  regenerated  ? 
Does  he  command  this  as  a  duty,  and  yet  forbid  it  as  a 
privilege?  Does  he  grant  unto  any  the  blessings  of  his 
sacrificial  death,  and  yet  prohibit  their  sacramental  cele- 
bration of  his  death?  Is  a  grateful  remembrance  of  his 
death  essential  to  the  new  and  spiritual  nature  of  believers, 
and  yet  are  they  to  be  prohibited  a  grateful  and  formal 
observance  of  the  ordinance  that  symbolizes  that  death? 


CONCESSIONS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS.  59 


How  can  gratitude  be  essential  to  religion  and  yet  the 
exercise  of  that  noble  grace  be  interdicted  at  the  Lord's 
table  ?  Christ  has  bidden  all  mankind  to  come  to  him  for 
life,  and  he  bids  those  who  have  come  to  him  to  come  also  to 
his  table;  and,  if  any  have  involuntarily  erred  on  the  subject 
of  baptism,  he  does  not  regard  this  as  annulling  his  invita- 
tion to  his  table, — since,  as  the  Baptists  concede,  they  are 
yet  accepted  of  God,  and  what  does  not  divest  them  of 
salvation  does  not  disqualify  them  for  the  Lord's  table. 

Other  passages  of  Scripture  equally  in  point  might  be 
adduced;  but  we  will  conclude  with  a  single  one  : — "Blessed 
are  they  which  are  called  to  the  marriage-supper  of  the 
Lamb  :''  and  we  run  no  hazard  in  saying,  the  number 
already  there  who  have  never  been  immersed  is  greater 
beyond  all  calculation  than  those  who  have  been  immersed. 


CHAPTER  V. 

CONCESSIONS    or   THE   BAPTISTS. 

If  baptism  be  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  sacramental 
communion,  the  concessions  of  the  Baptists  are  inconsistent 
with  such  a  doctrine.  Indeed,  it  will  be  found  in  this 
chapter  that  the  concessions  of  the  Baptists,  when  fairly 
interpreted,  not  only  prove  the  doctrine  to  be  false,  but 
utterly  refute  the  dogma  of  exclusive  immersion  on  which 
it  is  founded. 

If  it  be  true  that,  according  to  the  gospel,  baptism  is 
indispensably  prerequisite  to  sacramental  communion,  and 
immersion  only  is  baptism,  then  pious  Pedobaptists  have  no 
right  to  sacramental  communion  among  themselves,  for  they 
have  not  been  immersed.    But  the  Baptists  concede,  "  They 


60  CONCESSIONS   OP   THE   BAPTISTS. 


do  right  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  thougli  in  our 
opinion  unbaptized;''*  and  <^  There  is  no  reason  why  we 
should  breathe  a  murmur  against  them  because  they  take 
the  Lord's  Supper  in  their  own  churches. "f  Thus,  in  the 
first  place,  baptism  is  not  indispensable  to  sacramental  com- 
munion; and,  in  the  second  place,  immersion  is  not  essential 
to  baptism  :  and  thus  the  concessions  of  the  Baptists  sub- 
vert the  very  foundation  of  the  Baptist  Church.  For,  if  it 
is  '^  right"  for  the  Pedobaptists  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  without  immersion,  there  is  no  reason  why  the 
Baptist  Church  should  require  immersion  of  her  own  mem- 
bers as  indispensably  prerequisite  to  sacramental  communion 
within  her  own  fold.  And  consequently  the  following  dog- 
matic asseverations  amount  to  nothing: — ^'That  there  is  a 
connection  between  the  two  positive  institutions  of  the  New 
Testament  is  manifest  from  the  word  of  God ;  and  that  one 
of  them  must  be  prior  to  the  other  in  the  order  of  adminis- 
tration is  evident  from  the  nature  of  things. "J  "  Baptism  is 
an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the  communion. "§  "  Bap- 
tism is  a  prerequisite  to  the  supper;  and  we  cannot  admit 
to  the  supper  those  whom  we  regard  as  unbaptized."||  "  If 
God  requires  baptism  before  the  supper,  who  will  dare  to 
dispense  with  it  V'^  "  God  orders  that  the  baptized  only 
shall  communicate :  who  will  dare  to  abrogate  this  order  ?"'^* 
"  The  apostles  constantly  required  baptism  as  a  preparation 
for  the  communion. "ff  Baptism  is  one  of  the  ^'  divinely- 
ordained    and    unchangeable    terms    of  sacramental   com- 


••■  J.  G.  Fuller  on  Communion,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  con.  iii. 

■f-  Curtis  on  Communion,  p.  190. 

\  Booth's  Vindication  of  the  Baptists,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  p.  48. 

^  J.  Gr.  Fuller  on  Communion,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  p.  238. 

II  R.  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  2d  ed.,  p.  236. 

^  Ibid.  p.  242.  •«-*-  Ibid.  p.  243. 

ft  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  45. 


CONCESSIONS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS.  61 


muniou.'"^  "Turn  and  twist"  the  concessions  of  the  Bap- 
tists as  you  will,  these  asseverations  must  go  for  nothing : 
the  aqua-fortis  of  the  concessions  consumes  the  whole  force 
of  the  asseverations  and  pretensions  of  the  Baptists  on  the 
subject  of  close  communion.  For,  in  admitting  that  pious 
Pedobaptists  "  have  a  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
though  unbaptized/'  and  that  "  there  is  no  reason  why  we 
[the  Baptists]  should  breathe  a  murmur  against  them  for 
doing  it,"  the  Baptists  virtually  abolish  the  doctrine  of 
baptism  as  they  maintain  it, — that  is,  immersion  as  essential 
to  baptism.  In  their  asseverations  they  say  it  is  God's 
will  and  commandment  that  none  but  the  Baptists  shall 
commemorate  the  Lord's  death;  in  their  concessions  it  is 
no  violation  of  God's  will  and  commandment  for  pious  Pedo- 
baptists "  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  In  the  one 
case  they  establish  the  Pedobaptist  churches  upon  an 
immovable  basis ;  in  the  other  they  overturn  the  Baptist 
Church.  It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  extravagant  pre- 
tensions and  honest  concessions.  The  concession  that  pious 
Pedobaptists  have  a  "  vigM^  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper 
in  their  own  churches  is  a  death-seal  both  to  exclusive 
immersion  and  close  communion ;  for  it  declares  that  such 
persons  are  qualified  to  receive  the  communion  in  the  Bap- 
tist Church  :  and  this  seal  is  affixed  by  the  Baptists  them- 
selves. "  To  do  this" — that  is,  admit  the  unbaptized  to  the 
Lord's  Supper — ''would  be  to  declare  such  persons  qualified 
for  membership  in  our  churches;  which  would  be  to  admit 
members  without  baptism ;  ichich  would  be  to  abolish  bap- 
tism altogether." f  And  this  abolition  the  Baptists  as 
effectually  accomplish  by  admitting  ''the  right"  of  the 
unbaptized     to    sacramental    communion     in    their    own 


*  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  50. 

I  B.  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  2(1  ed.,  p.  237. 
6 


62  CONCESSIONS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


churches  as  if  they  admitted  them  to  the  Lord's  table  in 
the  Baptist  Church.  That  the  pretensions  and  concessions 
of  the  Baptists  involve  them  in  inextricable  difficulties  is 
incontestable.  The  claim  of  exclusive  immersion,  so  long 
and  sharply  contested,  is  at  length  quietly  and  hopelessl}'- 
surrendered.  Baptism  as  a  necessary  qualification  and 
indispensable  prerequisite  to  sacramental  communion  is 
voluntarily  abandoned.  Retreat  is  universal,  and  the  whole 
field  with  its  spoils  is  left  in  the  possession  of  the  Pedo- 
baptists.  But  one  thing  remains;  and  that  is,  that  the 
Baptists  leave  the  walls  which  they  can  no  longer  hold  and 
open  the  portals  which  they  can  no  longer  guard  without 
violating  "the  rights"  which  they  concede  to  their  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren.  Roger  Williams,  Bunyan,  Hall,  Foster, 
the  Haldanes,  Carson,  Noel,  and  other  noble  spirits,  have 
done  much  within  to  shake  the  walls  and  open  the  portals ; 
and  Mr.  Whitney,  with  a  giant  arm,  hurls  a  well-directed 
bolt  against  the  tottering  edifice.  "  It  seems  to  me  neither 
more  nor  less  than  a  downright  tampering  with  the  mind 
of  Grod  to  regard  baptism  as  a  divinely-required  preliminary 
to  communion,  and  yet  allow  that  persons  do  right  to  com- 
mune without  it  and  that  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
breathe  a  murmur  against  them  for  so  doing.  But  if,  as 
you  say,  they  are  undouhtedli/  entitled  to  it,  and  even  do 
right  in  partaking  of  it,  then  you  admit,  in  their  case  at 
least,  that  Christian  baptism  is  not  a  necessary  qualification, 
and,  of  course,  not  in  itself  a  divinely-constituted  qualifi- 
cation.''* 

But,  admitting  the  doctrine  of  the  Baptists  to  be  true, — 
which  we  do  not, — -then  the  Pedobaptists  have  a  right  to 
sacramental  communion;  for  they  believe  that  they  have 
been  properly  baptized.     This  is  conceded  by  Mr.  Fuller: 

*  Whitney  on  Communion,  pp.  47,  48. 


CONCESSIONS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS.  63 


"It  may  be  their  [Pedobaptists']  duty  to  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  since  they  believe  they  have  attended  to 
'the  prior  obligation/  every  man  being  required  to  act  on 
his  own  principles."*  What !  right  to  obey  God  ill  Pedo- 
baptist  churches,  and  yet  wrong  to  obey  him,  in  the  very 
same  thing,  in  a  Baptist  church?  The  sin  of  non-com- 
munion with  the  Baptists  is  not  chargeable,  then,  upon  the 
Pedobaptists, — the  Baptists  themselves  being  judges.  If 
we  already  do  our  "duty,''  though  not  immersed,  then  im- 
mersion is  not  indispensable  to  the  discharge  of  duty  in  this 
particular;  and  the  Baptists,  though  immersed,  do  no  more 
than  their  duty  in  this  particular ;  and  therefore  the  Pedo- 
baptists have  as  good  a  right  to  sacramental  communion  in 
the  Baptist  churches  as  the  Baptists  themselves  have, — Mr. 
Fuller  being  judge;  and  he  is  high  authority  with  the 
Baptists. 

"It  is  frequently* urged  that,  by  our  course,  we  at  least 
unchurch  all  other  denominations.  But  this  is  a  complete 
error.  AYe  do  not  unchurch  them.  We  will  not  deny  the 
claims  of  any  body  of  evangelical  Christians,  organized  for 
maintaining  social  worship,  to  be  considered  a  Christian 
church."f  Says  Kinghorn, (quoted  by  Ptobert  Hall,)  "The 
New  Testament  does  not  forbid  the  unbaptized  from  re- 
ceiving the  Lord's  Supper."J  The  reader  will  be  surprised 
at  the  following  concession  of  Dr.  Howell,  the  author  of 
the  "Evils  of  Infant  Baptism."  "Does  a  Pedobaptist 
honestly  believe,  after  an  impartial  examination  of  the  best 
evidences  to  which  he  can  gain  access  on  the  subject,  that 
he  has  received  Christian  baptism,  and  that  he  has  truly 


*  Fuller  on  Communion,  Bap.  Library,  vol.  i.  p.  243. 

f  Prof.  Curtis  on  Communion,  pp.  144, 190,264,  280.  Also  Christian 
Review,  vol.  xiv.  pp.  224,  225.  Quoted  by  Whitney  on  Open  Communion, 
p.  35.  t  Quoted  by  Whitney. 


64  CONCESSIONS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


entered  the  congregation  of  Christ  in  the  way  of  divine 
appointment?  Let  him  prosecute  the  course  he  has  adopted. 
All  the  Lord's  children  have  an  undoubted  right  to  his 
table,  because  whatever  is  his  is  theirs/'*  Again  :  '^  Yes;  it 
is  the  Lord's  table.  All  his  children  have  an  undoubted 
right  to  it,  because  whatever  is  his  is  theirs.  We  are  not 
permitted  to  preclude  them.  We  make  no  such  preten- 
sions."f  "  There  is  no  reason  why  we  should  breathe  a 
murmur  against  them  because  they  take  the  Lord's  Supper 
in  their  own  churches. "J 

The  Baptists  seem  to  have  overlooked  altogether  the 
legitimate  consequence  involved  in  these  concessions.  If 
^'Pedobaptists  have  a  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  do 
right  in  partaking  of  it  in  their  own  churches,"  then  either 
baptism  is  not  indispensably  prerequisite  to  sacramental 
communion^  or  the  Baptists  give  too  much  importance  to 
immersion.  But  if  Pedobaptists  have  a  right  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  if  they  do  right  in  partaking  of  it  in  their  own 
churches,  and  if  they  are  not  baptized,  then  baptism  is  not 
an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper ;  for  that 
cannot  be  right  when  that  which  is  indispensable  to  it  is 
wanting.  But  with  the  Baptists  immersion  is  baptism.  How 
then  ?  Pedobaptism  is  right,  or  they  have  no  right  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.  But  if  Pedobaptism  is  right,  then  im- 
mersion is  not  essential  to  baptism ;  for  Pedobaptists  gene- 
rally are  not  immersed.  Thus,  in  conceding  that  Pedo- 
baptists have  a  right  to  sacramental  communion  and  do 
right  in  observing  it  in  their  churches,  the  Baptists  divest 
immersion  of  its  imaginary  importance,  and  so  surrender  a 
claim  vital  to  their  existence  ^as  a  distinct  sect  of  Chris- 
tianity. 


*  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  99.  f  Ibid,  p.  107. 

J  Curtis  on  Communion,  p.  190. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  65 


If  it  be  right — as  it  is  conceded — for  Pedobaptists  to  obey 
a  command  in  observing  a  Christian  ordinance,  how  can  it 
be  wrong  for  the  Baptists  to  engage  with  them  in  obeying 
the  same  command  ?  or,  if  it  be  wrong  for  the  Baptists  to 
engage  with  the  Pedobaptists  in  sacramental  communion, 
why  is  it  not  still  more  wrong  for  the  Pedobaptists  them- 
selves to  engage  in  that  sacred  service  ?  "  When  an  action 
allowed  in  itself  to  be  innocent  or  commendable  becomes 
improper  as  performed  in  conjunction  with  another,  that 
impropriety  must  result  solely  from  the  moral  incompetency 
to  that  action  of  the  party  associated.  Thus,  in  the  instance 
before  us,  it  must  be  assumed  that  Pedobaptists  are  morally 
culpable  in  approaching  the  sacred  symbols,  or  the  attempt 
to  criminate  us  [mixed-communion  Baptists]  for  sanctioning 
them  in  that  practice  would  be  ridiculous.""^ 

This  suggests  another  remark.  While  the  Baptists  assume 
that  it  would  be  wrong  for  them  to  engage  with  pious  Pedo- 
baptists in  sacramental  communion,  they  never  represent 
the  Pedobaptists  as  incurring  any  guilt  in  celebrating  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Innumerable  and  severe  are  the  charges 
of  criminality  alleged  by  the  Baptists  against  the  Pedobap- 
tists; but  the  offence  of  sacramental  communion  among 
themselves  is  never  ijicorporated  in  the  bill.  Why  do  the 
Baptists  allow  this  high  crime  to  pass  without  a  word  of 
animadversion  or  a  whisper  of  condemnation  ?  The  Bap- 
tist Vatican  ^'lightens  and  thunders"  throughout  Christen- 
dom against  the  heretical  and  destructive  opinions  of  the 
Pedobaptists  on  the  subject  of  baptism;  but  a  profound 
and  inexplicable  silence  is  observed  respecting  the  profane 
abuse  of  the  Lord's  Supper  by  unbaptized  Christians. 
Either  this  silence  is  culpable  to  the  extent  of  the  depend- 
ence of  the  eucharist  on  baptism,  or  the  right  to  the  eu- 


«  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  342. 
6* 


66  CONCESSIONS    OP   THE    BAPTISTS. 


charist  does  not  depend  on  the  communication  of  baptism. 
Let  therefore  the  Baptists  censure  the  Pedobaptists  for 
celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper  among  themselves,  or  engage 
with  them  also  in  receiving  the  sacred  symbols.  It  is  not 
enough  for  the  Baptists  to  attempt  to  justify  themselves  for 
declining  sacramental  communion  with  the  Pedobaptists: 
they  must  demonstrate  that  sacramental  communion  by  the 
Pedobaptists  is  wrong;  and,  until  this  be  done,  every  argu- 
ment adduced  for  restricted  communion  must  be  utterly 
futile.  But  the  Baptists  never  recall  our  attention  to  this 
sin;  and  when  a  Pedobaptist  is  converted  to  their  opinions 
they  never  demand  of  him  compunction  or  repentance  for 
having  profaned  the  Lord's  table.  It  is  surprising  that 
this  internal  conviction  of  the  propriety  of  sacramental 
communion  among  Pedobaptists  should  not  have  led  the 
Baptists  to  engage  with  them  in  that  solemnity.  What  the 
Baptists  cannot  presume  to  condemn  they  ought  not  to 
decline  to  observe. 

The  Baptists  admit — what  cannot  be  denied — that  all 
believers  have  a  spiritual  fellowship  with  each  other,  as 
living  members  of  the  one  spiritual  church  of  Christ,  and 
thus  that  one  church  may  spiritually  commune  with  another. 
The  evidences  of  spirituality  in  other  churches  are  too 
many  and  weighty  to  admit  of  denial.  This  conclusion  is 
forced  upon  the  most  obstinate  resistance.  All  believers, 
then,  are  already  in  spiritual  communion  with  the  Baptists 
themselves.  But  what !  a  communion  with  the  whole  church, 
— a  communion  real,  lawful,  and  sanctioned  by  Grod  him- 
self,— a  communion  the  basis  of  external  and  visible  com- 
munion,— not  to  be  exemplified, — forbidden  to  be  visibly 
expressed  in  ordinances  instituted  by  Christ  himself?  Well, 
if  this  be  so,  then  banish  all  external  ordinances  and  forms — 
ministry,  sacraments,  and  all  else — from  the  church.  Carry 
the  doctrine  through;   obliterate  the  visible  church  from 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  67 


the  face  of  the  earth;  turn  Quakers  everywhere;  have  done 
forever  with  the  subject  of  sacramental  communion  and 
visible  Christian  fellowship, — for  fellowship  in  the  Sjnrit 
will  answer  every  end  of  the  gospel  of  Christ !  The  Baptists 
cannot  escape  from  the  dilemma  of  either  denying  the 
spirituality  of  other  churches,  or  convicting  themselves  of 
maintaining  a  practice  subversive  in  effect  of  the  visible 
church  among  men.  What  they  deny  to  others — namely, 
sacramental  communion — they  might  dispense  with  alto- 
gether themselves,  since  they  and  others  are  already  in 
spiritual  communion. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  Baptists  admit — what  cannot  be 
denied — that  all  believers  have  spiritual  fellowship  with 
Christ.  Then  certain  is  it  that  they  cannot  be  lost,  any 
more  than  believers  among  the  Baptists  can  be.  Then  the 
Baptists  cannot  escape  from  the  dilemma  of  either  denying 
the  spirituality  of  other  churches,  or  convicting  themselves 
of  requiring  of  others  what  is  not  essential  to  salvation. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  Baptists  admit — what  cannot  be 
denied — that  all  believers  have  spiritual  fellowship  with 
Christ.  Assuredly,  then,  they  should  obey  every  plain  and 
positive  command  of  Christ.  Then  the  Baptists  cannot 
escape  from  the  dilemma  of  either  denying  the  spirituality 
of  other  churches,  or  convicting  themselves  of  sin  in  deny- 
ing sacramental  communion  to  other  believers ;  for  "  Do 
this  in  remembrance  of  me"  is  a  plain  and  positive  com- 
mand to  every  believer. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  Baptists  require  immersion  as 
essentially  prerequisite  to  obeying  Christ  in  sacramental 
communion.  But  they  admit — what  cannot  be  denied — 
that  many,  man?/  believers  have  lived  and  died  who  were 
never  immersed.  Yerily,  then,  the  Baptists  cannot  escape 
from  the  dilemma  of  either  denying  that  many  believers 
have  lived  and  died  who  were  never  immersed,  or  convictinnr 


68  CONCESSIONS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


themselves  of  requiring  what  is  not  essentially  prerequisite 
to  obeying  Christ  in  sacramental  communion. 

Nor  is  this  all. .  The  Baptists  admit — what  cannot  be 
denied — that  all  believers  have  spiritual  fellowship  with 
Christ.  Then  other  believers  have  as  good  a  right  to  sacra- 
mental communion  as  the  Baptists  have.  But  as,  above, 
immersion  is  not  essential  to  sacramental  communion, 
certain  is  it  that  the  Baptists  cannot  escape  from  the 
dilemma  of  either  denying  the  spirituality  of  other  churches, 
or  convicting  themselves  of  having  no  right  to  sacranJental 
communion. 

The  ground  we  maintain  is,  that  all  who  give  satisfactory 
evidence  that  they  are  united  to  the  invisible  spiritual 
church  of  Christ  have,  by  virtue  of  that  fact,  a  right  to 
sacramental  communion  with  the  church.  All  we  want  is 
the  evidence  that  they  have  been  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit;  and,  giving  this,  they  have  a  right  to  commemorate 
with  us  in  sacramental  communion  the  sacrificial  death  of 
Christ  on  which  his  church  is  founded.  This  position  is 
substantially  admitted  by  the  Baptists  themselves.  The 
reader  will  be  surprised  at  the  following  admissions  of  some 
of  the  most  eminent  Baptist  authorities  : — 

^'  The  design  of  the  grgat  Institutor  was  that  it  [the 
Lord's  Supper]  should  be  a  memorial  of  God's  love  to  \is 
and  of  ImmanueV s  death  for  us.  To  give  real  evidence 
of  that  heavenly  affection,  [brotherly  love,]  there  must  be 
the  exercise  of  such  tempers  and  the  performance  of  such 
actions  as  require  much  self-denial,  &c.  The  reader,  there- 
fore, will  do  well  to  remember  that  the  true  test  of  love  to 
the  disciples  of  Christ  is  not  a  submission  to  any  particular 
ordinance  of  public  worship, — for  that  is  rather  an  evidence 
of  love  to  God  and  reverence  for  his  authority, — but  sympa- 
thizing with  them  in  their  afflictions,  feeding  the  hungry, 
clothing  the  naked,  and  taking  pleasure  in  doing  them  good. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  69 


whatever  their  necessities  msLjhe."^  It  is  undeniable  that 
this  "  true  test''  is  furnished  by  all  evangelical  churches ; 
and  therefore  they  have  a  right  to  the  sacrament,  which  is 
"a  me^i^orial  of  God's  love  to  them  and  Immanuel's  death 
for  them."  Again:  ^'Do  they  [the  Baptists]  affinn  that 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  confined  to  them  ?  that  they  only 
have  the  true  religion  among  them?  and  that  unless  men 
are  of  their  party  they  will  not  be  saved?  Do  they  wish 
success  to  none  that  are  employed  in  the  vineyard  but 
themselves  ?  or  say  of  others,  engaged  in  the  same  common 
cause,  Master,  forbid  them,  because  they  follow  not  with 
us  ?  On  the  contrary,  do  they  not  profess  a  warm  esteem 
and  affection  for  all  those,  of  whatsoever  communion,  who 
love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  aim  to  promote  his  cause  in 
the  world*?  and  do  they  not  give  proof  of  this  by  holding  a 
friendly  correspondence  with  them  as  opportunities  offer, 
and  by  cordially  joining  with  them  in  occasional  exercises 
of  public  worship?  It  is  not  the  distinguishing  tenet  of 
baptism — how  much  soever  they  wish  it  to  prevail — that  is 
the  main  bond  that  knits  them  in  affection  to  one  another : 
it  is  the  infinitely-nobler  consideration  of  the  relation  they 
stand  in  to  Christ  as  his  disciples.  They  hope,  therefore, 
to  be  believed  when  they  declare  that  they  most  cordially 
emhrace  in  the  arms  of  Christian  love  the  friends  of  Jesus 
who  differ  from  them  in  this  j^oint.''-]  What !  "  the  kingdom 
of  Christ  not  confined"  to  the  Baptists, — ^Hhe  true  religion" 
existing  in  other  churches, — "profess  a  warm  esteem  and 
affection  for  all,  of  whatsoever  communion,  who  love  the 
Lord  Jesus  and  aim  to  promote  his  cause  in  the  world," — 

*"  Booth's  Vindication  of  the  Baptists,  <tc. :  Baptist  Library,  vol.  i. 
p.  46. 

t  Dr.  Stennett's  Answer  to  Mr.  Addington,  part  ii.  pp.  284,  285,  as 
quoted  by  Booth  in  his  Vindication  of  the  Baptists,  Baptist  Library, 
vol.  i.  p.  46. 


70  CONCESSIONS   OP   THE   BAPTISTS. 


"hold  a  friendly  correspondence"  with  all  such,  and  "engage 
with  them  in  exercises  of  public  worship/' — admit  that 
"baptism  is  not  the  main  bond  that  knits  them  in  affection 
to  one  another/'  but  that  this  bond  is  "  the  relation^'  other 
Christians  '^ stand  in  to  Clirist  and  his  disciples,^' — and 
"declare  that  they  most  cordially  einibrace  in  the 
ARMS  OF  Christian  love  the  friends  of  Jesus  who 
differ  from  them  in  this  point/'  and  yet  deny  their 
right  to  the  table  of  the  Lord, — refuse  to  go  further,  and 
"'  cordially"  welcome  them  to  sacramental  communion, — 
reverse  the  whole  admission  by  failing  to  recognise  the 
main  hond,  the  true  spiritual  relation  of  all  Christians 
to  each  other, — and  thus  acknowledge  and  repudiate  a 
sacred  right  in  the  same  breath  !  Can  the  gospel  of  truth, 
justice,  and  consistency  reconcile  such  a  contradiction  as 
this,  or  harmonize  the  cordial  admissions  and  affectionate 
professions  of  the  Baptists  with  their  uncompromising 
exclusiveness  ? 

But  Christ  is  one  in  the  churches.  How,  then,  can  the 
churches  be  two,  or  many,  except  in  outward  form  ?  or  how 
can  outward  form  destroy  the  unity  of  those  that  are  one  in 
Christ  ?  Where  outward  forms  vary,  there  is  difference  in 
outward  form  only,  if  the  unity  be  not  disturbed.  But  the 
Baptists  admit  that  pious  Pedobaptist  churches  are  "  true 
Christian  churches/'  and  hence  their  difference  in  outward 
form  does  not  disturb  their  uaity  with  the  church  of  Christ, 
for  Christ  is  one  in  his  churches.  The  church  is  "the 
bride  of  Christ."  Christ  has  not  two  brides.  Christ  is 
"  the  vine.'^  Individuals  and  individual  churches  are  "  the 
branches,"  and  they  all  partake  of  the  same  sap.  Fruitless 
branches  are  cut  off,  and  foreign  branches  are  not  admitted. 
The  Baptists  concede  that  pious  Pedobaptist  churches  are 
fruitful  and  native  branches :  how  then  can  one  branch 
disown  another  branch  when  both  proceed  from  the  same 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  71 


vine  and  are  nourished  by  the  same  sap?  Christ  is  <^the 
head/^  and  individuals  and  individual  churches  are  the 
''members/^  and  '^members  one  of  another.''  But  the 
Baptists  concede  that  pious  Pedobaptist  churches  are  true 
members  of  Christ,  the  head.  How  then  can  they  cut  off 
from  communion  with  themselves  so  many  members,  as  they 
do,  who  have  communion  with  Christ  as  well  as  themselves? 
Christ  is  the  "door,"  and  all  true  believers  have  entered 
that  door.  But  the  Baptists  admit  that  all  pious  Pedo- 
baptist churches  have  entered  that  door.  How  then  can 
they  refuse  communion  with  those  who  have  passed  the 
same  threshold  with  themselves  ?  Christ  is  "  the  way,'' 
and  all  true  believers  have  found  that  way.  But  the  Bap- 
tists concede  that  all  pious  Pedobaptists  have  found  that 
way.  How  then  can  they  decline  communion  with  those 
who  are  travelling  in  the  same  blessed  way  with  them- 
selves ?  Christ  is  the  ''  true  light,"  and  all  true  believers 
have  found  that  light.  But  the  Baptists  admit  that  all 
pious  Pedobaptists  have  found  that  light.  How  then  can 
they  deny  communion  to  those  who  are  travelling  to  heaven 
in  the  same  blessed  light  with  themselves  ?  Christ  is  the 
*Hrue  bread,"  and  all  true  believers  partake  of  that  bread. 
The  Baptists  concede  that  all  pious  Pedobaptists  have  par- 
taken, and  still  partake,  of  that  bread.  How  then  can  they 
repel  from  the  table  where  the  gift  of  that  bread  is  com- 
memorated those  who  have  partaken  of  and  are  sustained 
by  the  same  bread  with  themselves?  Christ  is  the  "water 
of  life,"  and  all  true  believers  drink  of  that  water.  But 
the  Baptists  admit  that  all  pious  Pedobaptists  have  found 
and  drink  of  that  water.  How  then  can  they  refuse  to 
drink  of  that  water  at  the  Lord's  table  with  those  who  have 
quaffed,  and  still  quaff,  at  the  same  fountain  with  them- 
selves ?  Christ  is  "the  Captain"  of  the  Christian  army, 
and  all   true  believers  are  his  soldiers.     The  Baptists  con- 


72  CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


cede  that  all  pious  Pedobaptists  are  his  soldiers.  How  then 
can  thej  decline  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  at  the  Lord's 
table  with  those  who  are  led  to  battle  and  conquest  by  the 
same  Captain  with  themselves  ?  Christ  is  "  the  King/'  and 
all  true  believers  are  the  subjects  of  his  spiritual  kingdom. 
The  Baptists  admit  that  all  pious  Pedobaptists  are  subjects 
of  his  spiritual  kingdom.  How  then  can  they  refuse  to  sit 
down  at  the  table  of  the  King  with  those  who  are  the  sub- 
jects of  the  same  spiritual  kingdom  with  themselves  ?  All 
members  of  the  same  great  spiritual  family,  on  earth  and  in 
heaven,  ^'lue  are  brethren,'' — and  admitted  to  be  brethren, 
and  called  and  loved  as  brethren, — and  yet  not  permitted 
to  sit  down  together  at  the  sacred  table  of  our  common 
Father,  Eedeemer,  and  Comforter  !  Let  the  Baptists  with- 
draw all  these  concessions,  or  abandon  their  practice.  The 
concessions  are  wrong,  or  their  practice  is  wrong,  or  Christ 
is  divided  :  which  ?  Not  the  first  and  last ;  and,  therefore, 
the  practice  of  the  Baptists  is  inconsistent  both  with  the 
Bible  and  their  own  concessions. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  whenever  the  Baptists  frame 
a  rule  in  vindication  of  close  communion  they  either  exclude 
the  Pedobaptists  from  salvation  altogether,  or  make  con- 
cessions that  set  aside  the  rule  altogether.  The  evidence 
which  the  Pedobaptists  give  of  faith,  and  consequently  of 
their  right  to  the  communion,  is  a  difficulty  to  strict  com- 
munion with  which  the  Baptists  have  never  been  able 
successfully  to  grapple.  Even  the  acute,  profound,  and 
logical  Wayland  has  been  driven  to  the  necessity  of  making 
a  discrimination  to  protect  the  practice  of  the  strict  Bap- 
tists. ^'  That  which  qualifies  a  man,"  says  he,  ^''  evidentially 
for  admission  to  the  Christian  church  is  real  discipleship  to 
Christ,  or  a  temjper  of  heart  to  obey  him  in  every  thing 
that  he  has  revealed.  This  makes  him  a  member  of  the 
holy  catholic  church.     But,  besides  this,  there  are  various 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  73 


points  of  practical  obedience  in  respect  to  whicli  real  dis- 
ciples may  diflfer;  and  this  difFerence,  thougli  it  do  not 
designate  a  different  temper  of  heart,  yet  may  nevertheless 
render  it  suitable  and  proper  that  those  who  think  alike 
should  associate  more  especially  with  each  other.  One  man 
believes  that  Christ  commands  him  to  administer  baptism 
to  infants;  another  believes  this  to  be  the  command  and 
doctrine  of  men.  Both  may  be  equally  willing  to  obey 
Christ  in  whatever  they  suppose  Christ  to  have  com- 
manded ;  both  may  be  equally  his  disciples ;  yet  it  is  evi- 
dent that  both  could  not  unite  together  in  the  same  church, 
for  they  could  not  practically  obey  the  •  same  commands: 
Hence  ai'ises  the  division  of  the  church  into  different  sects. 
It  is  the  natural  and  healthy  result  of  that  freedom  of 
opinion  which  springs  from  Protestantism/^*  It  never  yet 
has  been  questioned  by  a  candid  Baptist  that  pious  Pedo- 
baptists  exhibit  ^^  a  temper  of  heart  to  obey  Christ  in  every 
thing  that  he  has  revealed;"  and  Dr.  Wayland  admits  that 
such 'are  real  disciples  of  Christ,  are  ^^  members  of  the  holy 
catholic  church/^  and  are  ^'qualified  for  admission  to  the 
Christian  church. ^^  The  distinction  which  he  makes  in 
opinions  which  result  in  '^  the  division  of  the  church  into 
different  sects"  cannot  justify  the  exclusion  of  any  from  the 
Lord's  Supper  who  "  are  equally  his  disciples.^'  Difference 
in  human  opinions  that  do  not  affect  ^'  the  essential  qualifi- 
cation for  admission  to  the  Christian  church"  may  be  the 
ground  of  different  ecclesiastical  organizations,  but  cannot 
render  it  suitable  and  proper  for  one  sect  to  exclude  other 
sects  from  a  participation  in  that  which  is  the  common 
property  of  all  the  sects. 

Dr.  Wayland  makes  this  fatal  concession  more  specifically 
in  another  passage  of  the  same  work  : — "It  may,  however, 


•■•  Wayland's  Human  Responsibility,  pp.  130,  131. 

7 


COiNCKSSIONS    OF    THE    BAi'TlSTS, 


be  asked,  What  then  is  the  bond  which  uuites  these  differ- 
ent voluntary  associations  together?  I  answer,  charity, 
which  is  the  perfect  bond.  They  are  united  to  each  other 
by  the  common  bond  of  union  to  the  same  head,  of  love  to 
the  same  Savior;  they  believe  the  same  doctrines;  they 
are  cheered  by  the  same  hopes ;  they  share  in  the  same 
sympathies ;  they  feel  the  same  obligations ;  they  encounter 
the  same  enemies,  and  are  enlisted  under  the  banner  of  the 
same  Captain  of  tbeir  salvation ;  they  are  members  of  the 
same  body, — are  animated  by  the  same  spirit;  they  ail 
breathe  the  same  breath  of  spiritual  life;  and  hence,  all 
being  in  the  same  manner  affected  by  the  same  moral 
agencies,  all  their  actions  are,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
in  harmony."*  Where  so  many  elements  of  spiritual 
''  harmon?/^'  combine,  wbat  rule  or  law  can  be  conceived, 
by  the  strictest  Baptist,  whicli  can  justify  exclusion  from 
sacramental  communion  ?  What  contrariety  can  neutralize 
the  force. of  such  a  compound?  What  besides  these  can 
the  Baptists  claim  that  is  not  of  imaginary  importance  or 
that  may  not  be  justly  regarded  merely  as  the  discriminating 
characteristic  of  a  sect  ?  Dr.  Howell,  who  professes  to  have 
^'  copied  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Wayland,"f  by  a  strange 
infatuation  turns  the  whole  force  of  his  eminent  author's 
sentiments  against  the  intolerance  of  the  Baptist  Church. 
"If,''  says  he,  "by  sordid  selfishness  I  show  myself  desti- 
tute of  love  to  God  and  the  souls  of  men,  the  church  ought 
to  withdraw  from  me  her  fellowship.  But  to  do  so  because 
I  choose  to  exercise  my  discretion  as  to  the  7node  of  mani- 
festing my  Christian  spirit,  ichile  I  evince  that  I  do  jwssess 
the  required  temper  of  heart,  is  to  dispense  with  the  laws 
of  Christ  and  to  assume  the  ri^-bt  to  institute  other  terms 


*  WayUuicl's  Hurnun  Responsibility,  p.  M2. 
f  Howeil  on  Cu'aniunion,  p.  l;iO. 


CONCESSIONS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS.  To 


of  communion  than  those  which  he  has  appointed, — a 
usurpation  of  authority  and  a  violation  of  the  divine  injunc- 
tions against  which  it  is  the  duty  of  every  sincere  Christian 
to  enter  his  immediate  and  most  solemn  protest/'*  Most 
true ;  and  every  word  recoils  with  the  force  of  self-evidence 
upon  the  practice  of  the  strict  Baptists.  The  doctor  must 
either  deny  that  pious  Pedobaptists  fail  "  to  manifest  a 
Christian  spirit/'  and  so,  in  his  judgment,  exclude  them 
from  salvation  altogether,  or  admit  that,  in  withdrawing 
from  sacramental  fellowship  with  them,  the  strict  Baptii^ts 
''  dispense  with  the  laws  of  Christ,"  institute  new  terms  of 
communion,  usurp  authority,  and  violate  the  injunctions 
of  Christ,  against  which  it  is  his  duty,  as  a  sincere  Christian, 
**  to  enter  his  immediate  and  most  solemn  protest." 

In  a  circular  of  the  Hudson  River  Association,  New 
York,  written  by  Dr.  Cone,  it  is  asserted,  ^'If  the  primitive 
churches  received  only  such  as  professed  to  be  born  of  God 
and  gave  evidence  that  they  were  begotten  again  unto  a 
lively  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  we  should 
imitate  their  example;  and,  if  there  come  unto  us  any  and 
bring  not  this  doctrine,  we  are  commanded  not  to  receive 
them  into  our  houses,  neither  to  bid  them  God-speed;  for 
he  that  biddeth  them  God-speed  is  partaker  of  their  evil 
deeds  :  and  how  can  we  more  fulhj  do  this  than  to  receive 
them  to  our  communion  f  All  candidates,  therefore,  for 
communion  or  membership  must  give  evidence  that  they 
are  born  again.  This  is  the  first  scriptural  term  of  com- 
munion;" and  Dr.  Howell  adds,  ''And  the  second  is,  that 
they  shall  have  entered  the  church  by  baptism."!*  Do  not 
pious  Pedobaptists  give  the  most  satisfactory  ''  evidence 
that  they  are  born  again"  ?  The  Baptists  admit  that  they 
do.     They  have,  then,  ''the  first  scriptural  term  of  com- 

*  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  33.  f  Ibid.  p.  56. 


'6  CONCESSIONS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


munion."  But  they  have  uot,  it  is  supposed,  "the  second/^ 
which  is  ^^ baptism/'  and  therefore  they  are  not  to  be 
received  into  the  houses  of  the  Baptists  nor  have  the  en- 
couragement of  a  God-speed  from  the  Baptists,  but  are  to  be 
regarded  as  evil-doers,  who  would  involve  the  Baptists  in 
their  evil  deeds  by  communing  with  them.  They  must  be  not 
only  turned  out  of  the  doors  of  Baptist  houses,  but  from  the 
covenant  of  God,  and  consigned  to  the  doom  of  evil-doers. 
This  is  ju'stified  under  the  pretence  of  "imitating  the 
example  of  the  primitive  churches.'^  These  are  that  repro- 
bate class  who  "  give  evidence  that  they  are  begotten  again 
to  a  lively  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
the  dead,'^  who,  in  the  judgment  of  Dr.  Wayland,  "are 
members  of  the  same  body,  are  animated  by  the  same  spirit, 
breathe  the  same  breath  of  spiritual  life,  believe  the  same 
doctrines,  are  cheered  by  the  same  hopes,  share  in  the  same 
sympathies,  feel  the  same  obligations,  encounter  the  same 
enemies,  are  enlisted  under  the  banner  of  the  same  Captain, 
are- united  by  the  same  bond  of  union  to  the  same  Head,  are 
affected  in  the  same  manner  by  the  same  moral  agencies, 
and  all  whose  actions,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  are  in 
harmony'^  with  those  who  repel  and  denounce  them  as  evil- 
doers ;  and  for  whom,  "  as  the  people  of  God,^^  Dr.  Howell 
"cherishes  the  sincerest  regard;^'  and  with  whom,  he  says, 
the  Baptists  "preach,  pray,  labor,  consult,  and  co-operate 
for  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  and  take  pleasure  in  being- 
associated  ^  in  every  good  word  and  work.' "  These  are 
the  evil-doers  who  are  to  be  scrupulously  excluded  from  the 
sauctities  of  social  and  sacramental  intercourse !  I  leave 
the  reader  to  judge  which  has  a  better  right  to  the  com- 
munion,— he  who  exalts  a  peculiar  opinion  into  a  command 
of  God  that  excludes  His  people  from  salvation,  or  he  who, 
with  these  concessions  in  his  favor  made  by  the  excluding 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


part}^,  is  chargeable  with  an  involuntary  mistake, — if  it  be 
a  mistake ! 

But  we  proceed  a  step  further.  The  concessions  of  the 
Baptists  essentially  involve  the  conclusion  that  exclusive 
immersion — the  distinguishing  characteristic  and  foundation 
of  the  Baptist  Church — is  not  in  harmony  with  the  precepts 
and  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  consequently  untenable.  This 
is  a  serious  position ;  and,  bold  as  it  may  appear,  the  con- 
cessions of  the  Baptists  establish  it.  The  precepts  of  the 
gospel  are  always  in  harmony  with  the  Spirit;  that  is,  what 
the  Holy  Spirit  enjoins  is  always  in  harmony  with  his 
operations.  Consequently,  nothing  is  enjoined  in  the  gos- 
pel as  a  matter  of  duty  on  Christians  which  clashes  with 
the  operations  of  the  Spirit  in  believers.  The  precepts  of 
Christ  as  contained  in  the  gospel,  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
as  contained  in  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  in  believers, 
never  propel  the  believer  in  opposite  directions.  If  we  are 
doubtful  as  to  the  import  of  the  precepts  of  Christ,  but  are 
clear  andsatisfied  as  respects  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  our 
interpretation  of  the  precepts  palpably  comes  in  conflict 
with  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  we  have  certain  evidence  that 
our  interpretation  of  the  precepts  is  wrong  and  should  be 
abandoned  or  modified  to  harmonize  with  the  Spirit.  The 
same  may  be  said  with  regard  to  what  the  Baptists  call 
*' apostolic  precedents.'^  If  the  import  we  give  to  these 
precedents  comes  in  conflict  with  the  clear  and  indubitable 
spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  we  have  the  most  satisfactory 
evidence  that  the  import  we  have  given  to  the  precedents 
is  wrong  and  should  be  abandoned  or  modified,  as  just  now 
affirmed.  Now,  pious  Pedobaptists  display  in  heart  and  life 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  to  the  extent  the  Baptists  do,  to  say  no 
more ;  and  this  the  Baptists  admit.  But  the  exclusiveness 
of  the  Baptists  directly  clashes  with  this  genuine  evangelical 
spirit  of  the  Pedobaptists.     Hence,  the  Baptists  must  either 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


abandon  their  exclusiveness  or  deny  the  genuineness  and 
purity  of  the  spirit  of  the  Pedobaptists.  The  most  violent 
Baptist  does  not  pretend  to  do  the  latter;  and  hence  the 
Baptists  should  abandon  or  modify  the  import  which  they 
give  to  the  precepts  of  Christ  and  the  '^precedents"  of  the 
apostles  respecting  baptism,  and  the  dependence  of  the 
eucharist  upon  it.  They  must  either  assume  that  Pedo- 
baptists have  not  received,  and  do  not  display,  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  to  the  extent  they  have  received  and  display  it, 
or  admit  that  the  very  foundation  of  the  Baptist  Church, 
exclusive  immersion,  with  its  concomitant,  close  communion, 
is  unsupported  by  the  precepts  of  Christ  and  the  '^  pre- 
cedents" of  the  apostles,  and  so  is  a  mere  human  invention, 
or  fiction  of  the  imagination.  This  much  is  undeniable, — 
that  Pedobaptists  evince  the  spirit  of  the  precepts  of  Christ 
and  precedents  of  the  apostles  in  a  most  eminent  degree ; 
and  the  evidence  is  yet  wanting  that  they  have  miscon- 
strued, in  any  essential  particular,  the  external  import  of 
those  precepts  and  precedents,  and  time  enough  has 
elapsed  to  justify  the  assertion  that  they  run  no  hazard  of 
ever  being  convinced  of  the  contrary ;  and  surely  the  Bap- 
tists have  evidence  suf&cient  to  convince  them  that  they 
have  incorrectly  construed  and  improperly  applied  the  pre- 
cepts and  precedents  on  the  subject  of  baptism. 

If  the  Baptists  reply  that,  under  their  construction  and 
application  of  these  precepts  and  precedents,  they  have 
flourished  as  a  church  of  Christ,  we  observe,  this  avails 
nothing ;  for  the  Pedobaptists  can  employ  the  same  argu- 
ment iu  proof  of  the  correctness  of  their  construction  and 
application  of  the  same  precepts  and  precedents;  and  then 
the  conclusion  is,  that  outward  forms  are  unessential  so  they 
do  not  clash  with  the  spirit  and  efficiency  of  the  gospel ; 
and  therefore  the  Baptists  should  not  raise  a  barrier  to 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  79 


sacramental  commuEiion  where  none  really  is  justified  or 
required  by  the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 

Again :  participation  in  the  communion  is  a  recognition 
of  believers  as  actual  partakers  by  faith  of  the  spiritual 
blessings  of  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ.  In  the  language 
of  Robert  Hall,  ^'  In  its  secondary  import,  it  is  intended  as 
a  solemn  recognition  of  each  other  as  members  of  Christ, 
and  consequently,  in  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  ^as  one 
body  and  one  bread.^  Now,  we  either  acknowledge  Pedo- 
baptists  to  be  Christians,  or  we  do  not.  If  not,  let  us  speak 
out  without  reserve,  and  justify  their  exclusion  at  once, 
upon  a  broad  and  consistent  basis."*  But  the  Baptists 
acknowledge  that  the  Pedobaptists,  in  spirit  and  life,  are 
Christians  in  the  highest  sense.  Therefore  the  ^'exclusion" 
is  inconsistent  both  with  the  import  of  the  eucharist  and 
concessions  of  the  Baptists;  and  so  the  basis  of  the  Bajj- 
tists'  qxclusiveness  and  restriction  is  imaginary. 

Mr.  Booth  makes  an  attempt  to  explain  away  these 
palpable  inconsistencies.  "But  is  there  no  difference  be- 
tween occasionally  admitting  Pedobaptist  ministers  into  our 
pulpits,  and  receiving  them,  or  others  of  the  same  persua- 
sion, into  our  communion,'' — that  is,  to  the  Lord's  table  ? 
"  Were  we,"  he  answers,  "  to  receive  Pedobaptists  into  our 
fellowship,  we  should  practically  allow  what  we  consider  a 
human  invention  to  supersede  a  divine  institution.  Not  so 
when  we  admit  ministers  of  that  persuasion  into  our  pul- 
pits. In  this  case  there  is  no  divine  institution  superseded, 
no  human  invention  in  the  worship  of  Crod  encouraged. 
Again  :  when  we  admit  Pedobaptist  ministers  into  our  pul- 
pits, it  is  in  expectation  that  they  will  preach  the  gospel, — 
that  very  gospel  which  we  believe  and  love,  and  about 
which  there  is  no  difference  between  them  and  us.     But  to 

*  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  324. 


80  CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


receive  Pedobaptists  into  communion  would  be  openly  to 
connive  at  an  error, — an  error  both  in  judgment  and  prac- 
tice; an  error  of  that  kind  which  the  Scripture  calls  ^will- 
worship  and  the  traditions  of  men/'^*  Here  is  a  plain 
recognition  of  the  authority  of  Pedobaptist  ministers  to 
preach:  and  have  men  a  divine  authority  to  preach,  and 
yet  no  right  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  a  right 
tp  occupy  the  pulpits  of  Christ,  and  no  right  to  the  table 
of  Christ  ?  a  right  to  break  the  bread  of  life  to  the  Bap- 
tists, and  no  right  to  break  the  sacramental  bread  with  the 
Baptists  at  the  table  of  Christ  ?  a  right  to  call  silvers  to 
repentance,  faith,  and  salvation,  and  crowd  the  communion- 
table in  the  Baptist  churches  with  young  converts,  seals  to 
their  ministry,  and  yet  no  right  to  partake  with  them  in 
the  sacramental  feast?  The  ministry  is  a  divine  institution; 
and  Pedobaptists  are  invested  with  it ;  and  their  baptism,  a 
''human  invention,"  is  not  regarded  as  a  bar  to  their 
'preaching :  why  should  it  be  considered  an  insurmountable 
barrier  to  the  Lord's  table  ?  If  their  haptism  in  one  case 
is  ''  superseded''  by  their  authority  to  preach,  why  should 
their  baptism,  or  want  of  baptism,  stand  in  their  way  to  the 
Lord's  table.  If  "  the  worship  of  God  is  encouraged"  by 
admitting  Pedobaptist  ministers  into  the  pulpit,  why  may 
it  not  be  encouraged  by  admitting  them  to  the  Lord's  table? 
"Would  it  be  '^  openly  to  connive  at  error  to  receive  Pedo- 
baptists into  communion,''  and  is  it  not  openly  to  connive 
at  the  same  error  to  receive  them  into  the  pulpit  ?  "An 
error  of  that  kind  which  the  Scripture  calls  'will-worship 
and  traditions  of  men,' " — why,  for  these  very  things  per- 
sons were  not  admitted  into  the  apostolic  churches,  much 
less  into  the  pulpit ;  and  j^et  the  Baptists  openly  connive 
at  this  kind  of  error  in  Pedobaptist  ministers,  by  receiving 

"*  Vindication  of  the  Baptist',  Baptist  Library,  a'oI.  i.  p.  66. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  81 


them  into  their  pulpits,  and  yet  not  openly  connive  at  the 
same  thing  by  receiving  them  at  the  Lord's  table !  And 
what  aggravates  the  inconsistency  is,  these  Pedobaptist 
ministers  preach  ^Hhat  very  gospel  which  the  Baptists 
believe  and  love,  and  about  which  there  is  no  difference 
between  them  and  the  Pedobaptists/^  What  right  has 
any  man  to  preach  who  has  not  been  baptized  ? — who  has 
neglected  the  positive  institution  of  baptism  ? — or  who  en- 
cumbers himself  with  "  a  human  invention'^  in  its  place  ? 
The  Baptists  will  not  admit  to  the  Lord's  Supper — which  is 
an  ordinance  of  the  gospel — any  who  have  not  been  im- 
mersed :  why  do  they  allow  or  recognise  the  right  of  any 
who  have  not  been  immersed  to  preach  the  gospel  itself? 
There  is  no  escape  from  the  dilemma,  either  to  deny  the 
divine  authority  of  Pedobaptists  to  preach  the  gospel,  or 
admit  their  riglit  to  sacramental  communion. 

This  inconsistency  of  the  Baptists  is  aggravated  still  more 
by  another  consideration,  founded  on  ^'  Baptist  principles/' 
as  they  are  pleased  to  call  them,  and  which  for  the  present 
we  will  admit  to  be  sound.  The  order  with  them  when 
arguing  from  the  Scriptures  is,  first,  faith  and  conversion, 
then  baptism,  then  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  with  them 
must  be  the  invariable  order.  Granted :  but  a  man  must 
be  converted  before  he  can  have  a  divine  authority  to 
preach;  and  the  ministry  is  the  noblest,  most  solemn,  and 
most  exalted  institution  of  Christianity.  But  Pedobaptist 
ministers  have  divine  authority  to  preach, — that  is,  are 
invested  with  the  highest  office  committed  by  Christ  to 
men.  Then  they  have  believed  and  are  converted.  But 
they  have  never  been  baptized, — the  Baptists  being  judges. 
What !  converted,  and  straightway,  icithout  baptism,  enter 
upon  the  work  of  the  highest  office  in  the  church  ?  What 
becomes  of  ^'  Baptist  principles"  here  ?  The  very  first  duty 
after  faith  and  conversion  has  been  neglected.   The  Baptists 


82  CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


'^connive''  at  the  violation  of  their  own  principles, — the 
want  of  an  essential  link  in  an  invariable  order, — become  a 
party  to  the  offence,  receive  into  the  pulpit  the  usurpers, 
'^set  aside  a  divinely-appointed  prerequisite"  (baptism)  to 
admission  into  the  church, — much  more,  into  the  holy  office 
of  the  ministry, — and  yet  consider  the  offence  sufficient 
for  exclusion  from  the  sacramental  table !  Unbaptized  men 
are  authorized  to  preach,  but  they  have  no  right  to  the  Lord's 
table,  though  the  Lord  himself  converted,  called,  and  author- 
ized them  to  preach, — the  Baptists  themselves  being  judges  ! 

It  is  not  surprising  that  Mr.  Booth  should  feel  annoyed 
by  this  inconsistency,  and  so  he  attempts  to  defend  the 
practice  of  the  Baptists  upon  scriptural  grounds ;  but  the 
very  attempt  yields  the  luhole  ground  to  the  Pedobaptists. 
*'We  find  in  that  inspired  volume  [the  Bible]  a  sufficient 
warrant  for  uniting  with  those  that  believe,  in  affection  and 
walk,  so  far  as  agreed,  notwithstanding  their  ignorance  of 
some  part  of  the  counsel  of  God,  to  which  a  conscientious 
obedience  is  indispensably  required  from  all  those  by  whom 
it  is  known.  Yes ;  the  New  Testament  not  only  permits  as 
lawful,  but  enjoins  as  an  indispensable  duty,  that  we  should 
love  them  that  love  the  Lord,  and  that  we  should  manifest 
this  holy  affection  in  every  way  that  is  not  inconsistent  with 
a  revelation  of  the  divine  will  in  some  other  respect.'^"^ 
And  he  refers  us  to  Phil.  iii.  15, 16.  Here  is  the  passage  : 
— "  Let  us  therefore,  as  many  as  be  perfect,  be  thus  minded ; 
and  if  in  any  thing  ye  be  otherwise  minded,  God  shall 
reveal  even  this  unto  you.  Nevertheless,  whereunto  we  have 
already  attained,  let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule,  let  us  mind 
the  same  thing."  This  is  Mr.  Booth's  vindication  of  the  Bap- 
tists for  receiving  Pedobaptist  ministers  into  their  pulpits. 

Philippi  was  the  first  city  in    Europe  in  which   Paul 

^''  Vindication  of  the  Baptists,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  1.  p.  66. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  83 


preached  the  gospel;  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  was 
written  by  him.  The  church  in  Philippi  was  remarkable 
for  its  purity  and  piety,  and  was  the  apostle's  favorite 
church.  From  the  whole  tone  and  letter  of  the  epistle,  no 
apostolic  church  enjoyed  greater  freedom  from  false  doc- 
trine, or  was  more  firmly  settled  in  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  gospel,  than  this  church;  and  so  we  may 
conclude,  if  any  church  conformed  fully  to  the  gospel- 
standard,  this  church  did.  They  were  all  then  baptized, 
and  all  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  sacramental  fellowship.  If 
the  passage  quoted  by  Mr.  Booth  in  defence  of  receiving 
Pedobaptist  ministers  into  Baptist  pulpits,  therefore,  has 
any  force  in  it,  the  Baptists  should  also  extend  sacramental 
communion  to  Pedobaptist  ministers  and  other  Christians ; 
for  those  among  the  Philippians  who  were  not  "  perfect," 
or  were  ^^  otherwise  minded,"  were  admitted  to  this  privi- 
lege. ''  As  far  as  they  were  agreed,"  or  though  they  had 
not  all  attained  to  the  same  perfection  in  spiritual  knowledge 
and  moral  perfection,  they  were  all  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
table.  This  is  undeniable.  If  those  who  had  not  attained 
to  this  perfection  icere  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table,  then 
the  analogy  of  Mr.  Booth  fails.  If  such  were  not  admitted 
to  the  Lord's  table,  then  many  already  in  the  church  were 
excluded  because  they  had  not  been  baptized;  and  the 
apostle  himself  also  had  no  right  to  the  Lord's  table,  for  he 
acknowledges  that  he  had  not '' already  attained,  either  were 
already  perfect."  (v.  12.)  And  so,  if  Paul,  with  this  con- 
fession, were  now  to  appear  on  earth,  the  Baptists  would 
not  admit  him  to  their  pulpits,  and  would  repel  him  from 
the  Lord's  table,  though  they  publish  him  to  the  world  as 
divine  authority  for  their  ''  principles  and  practice"  !  The 
''inspired  volume  is  a  sufficient  warrant  for  uniting  with 
those  that  believe,  in  aifection  and  walk,  as  far  as  agreed;" 
but  defect  or  disagreement  in  the  Philippian  church  in  fact 


8.1:  CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


did  not  exclude  any  from  the  Lord's  table.  Therefore,  the 
Philippiaus  being  the  standard,  the  Baptists  and  Pedo- 
baptists  are  sufficiently  agreed  to  unite  in  sacramental 
fellowship. 

But  Mr.  Booth  develops  a  "lawful"  practice  and  "an 
indispensable  duty"  from  the  Philippian  analogy.  "  Yes  ; 
the  New  Testament  not  only  lyermits  as  lawful,  but  enjoins 
as  an  indispensable  duty,  that  we  should  love  them  that  love 
the  Lord,  and  that  we  should  manifest  this  holy  affection  in 
every  way  that  is  not  inconsistent  with  a  revelation  of  the 
divine  will  in  some  other  respect."  But  imperfect  Christians 
in  the  Philippian  church  were  not  excluded  from  the  Lord's 
table.  Therefore,  the  practice  of  the  Philippian  church 
being  the  standard,  it  would  not  only  be  "  laiv/id"  in  the 
Baptists  to  admit  Pedobaptist  ministers  and  other  Christians 
to  the  Lord's  table,  but  it  is  their  "  indisjjensahle  dut^*' 
to  do  it.  The  whole  argument  here  proceeds  upon  the 
supposition  that  Pedobaptist  ministers  and  other  Christians 
are  imperfect  Christians,  and  that  the  Baptists  are  "perfect" 
Christians.  No  matter :  the  result  in  the  argument  is  the 
same  as  if  all  were  perfect  alike,  as  all  have  an  equal  right 
to  the  Lord's  table.  But  we  are  not  willing  to  concede  the 
superior  excellence  of  the  Baptists  as  a  church ;  nor  do  we 
underrate  them  among  the  churches  of  Christ;  We  claim 
right  to  the  Lord's  table  upon  equal  ground  with  them, — 
no  more.  Only  we  are  surprised  that  they  should  yield  us 
in  some  things  more  than  sacramental  communion,  and  yet 
deny  us  that. 

But  J.  G.  Fuller,  a  learned  and  liberal  Baptist  of  Eng- 
land, in  his  strictures  upon  Robert  HalFs  unanswerable 
arguments  in  favor  of  open  communion,  carries  the  matter 
of  concession  through,  in  admitting  that  it  is  right  for 
Pedobaptists  to  receive  the  communion  in  their  own 
churches.      The   concession  of  Mr.   Fuller   is   the   more 


CONCESSIONS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS.  85 


important  as  he  admits  that  Mr.  Hall  is  '^  the  most  powerful 
advocate'^  of  open  communion,  and  the  Baptists  regard  Mr. 
Fuller's  reply  as  the  best  that  has  been  made  or  can  be 
made.  Mr.  Fuller's  reply  is  presented  in  the  form  of 
"  Conversations  between  two  Laymen  on  Strict  and  Mixed 
Communion.'' 

The  'dayman"  for  open  communion  observes,  "Mr. 
Hall  contends  that  sincere  and  conscientious  Pedobaptists, 
whose  mistake  is  involuntary,  are  entitled  to  a  participation 
of  the  privileges  of  church-fellowship.''  Mr.  Fuller  con- 
cedes, "They  who  honestly  believe,  after  an  impartial 
investigation  of  the  best  evidence,  that  they  have  received 
Christian  baptism,  that  they  have  entered  the  visible  church 
in  the  way  of  divine  appointment,  are  undoubtedly  entitled 
to  its  peculiar  privileges.  They  act  on  their  own  belief 
and  on  their  own  responsibility :  consequently,  on  their  own 
principles,  thet/  do  right  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper , 
though  in  our  opinion  unbaptized, — their  conviction  and  not 
ours  being  the  proper  directory.'"''  We  will  let  Mr.  F. 
conscientiously  entertain  the  "opinion"  that  pedobaptism  is 
no  baptism,  and  yet  accept  his  concession  that  conscientious 
Pedobaptists  "  do  right  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 
If  we  do  right,  we  have  the  sanction  and  blessing  of  God ; 
and  what  more  could  the  Baptists  require  to  justify  a  cordial 
reciprocation  in  sacramental  communion? 

Again  :  "AYe  assert  not  only  that  the  possession  of  the 
thing  signified  entitles  its  possessor  to  the  sign,  but  also 
that,  being  so  qualified,  he  is  under  an  obligation  to  receive 
it."t  That  is,  in  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Fuller,  Pedobaptists, 
being  Christians,  as  he  admits  them  to  be,  are  entitled  to 

*  Conversations  on  Strict  and  Mixed  Communion,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i. 
p.  224. 

t  Fuller  on  Communion,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  p.  250. 


86  CONCESSIONS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


immersion,  and  ihej  are  "  under  obligation  to  receive  it." 
But  tliey  have  not  been  immersed :  therefore  they  have 
violated  their  obligation  to  receive  "  the  si<^n."  But  they 
have  "the  thing  sign ijied /^though  they  have  violated  the 
obligation  to  receive  "the  si(/n."  At  best;  then,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  Baptists'  idea  of  the  sign  is  of  no  mate- 
rial importance;  and  hence  the  absence  of  ^/leiV  "  sign," 
immersion,  should  not  be  made  a  bar  to  sacramental  com- 
munion. It  should  rather  remind  the  Baptists  that  after 
all  they  are  greatly  in  error  about  "the  sign,"  and  that  the 
Pedobaptists  have  violated  no  obligation  in  the  matter. 

Again :  "'  He  who  is  sanctified  and  redeemed  is  not  only 
entitled  to  the  symbols, — sanctification  and  redemption, — 
but  is  under  a  sacred  obligation  to  be  baptized  and  celebrate 
the  Lord's  Supper."*  But  Pedobaptist  Christians  are  both 
"  sanctified  and  redeemed,"  though  they  have  never  been 
immersed.  The  Baptists,  then,  attach  too  much  import- 
ance to  immersion;  and  they  consequently  prevent  the 
Pedobaptists  from  discharging  "  a  sacred  obligation"  when 
they  prohibit  them  to  "  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper"  in 
Baptist  churches. 

"*  Fuller  on  Communion,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  p.  250. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  87 


CHAPTER  YI. 

CONCESSIONS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS,    (CONTINUED.) 

We  continue  tte  concessions  of  tlie  Baptists. 

''The  spiritual  'Body  of  Christ'  is  indeed  a  ^glorious 
church.'  This  is  the  catholic  or  universal  church.  To 
this  belong  none  but  the  truly  regenerate:  they  are  the 
members  of  this  society,  knit  together  by  a  union  not 
imaginary,  but  most  sioeet  and  dear  and  im2:>e7nshable. 
Against  this  church  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail. 
We  rejoice  in  the  hope  that  in  all  the  visible  churches  of 
different  denominations  there  are  those  icho  are  united  with 
us  in  this  spiritual  church.  We  delight  to  feel  ourselves  one 
with  them, — one  in  spirit,  one  in  aim,  one  in  '  a  good  hope 
through  grace/  in  short,  one  in  Christ.  The  communion 
of  this  body,  however,  is  not  in  material  emblems,  as  bread 
and  wine :  it  is  spiritual;  it  is  the  fellowship  of  soul  loith 
sold ;  nor  can  walls,  nor  mountains,  nor  oceans,  nor  ages, 
separate  those  icho  are  thus  cemented."^  How  then  can 
the  wall  of  close  communion  separate  them?  It  should  do 
it,  if  "spiritual  union"  is  "  imaginary."  Again  :  "  I  know, 
I  rejoice  to  know,  that  in  Pedobaptist  churches  there  are 
some  of  the  noblest  lights  and  ornaments  of  Christianity. 
With  these  we  esteem  it  a  privilege  to  enjoy  the  closest 
spiritual  communion,  and  we  only  lament  that  they  con- 
tinue unbaptized."f  "We  gladly  admit  that,  so  far  as  the 
spiritual  qualifications  are  concerned,  there  are  evangelical 

*  R.  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  pp.  220,  221. 
t  Ibid.  p.  238. 


88  CONCESSIONS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


churches  whose  care  in  receiving  none  but  the  converted  is 
at  the  present  time  generally  as  great  as  our  own,  on  the 
whole/'  (Curtis's  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  p.  407.) 
Again :  "  So  far  as  our  Presbyterian,  Congregational,  and 
Methodist  brethren  are  concerned,  as  a  whole,  we  believe 
that  membership  of  any  of  their  churches  now  would  be  in 
general  as  credible  an  evidence  of  personal  piety  as  we  could 
desire. ''  (p.  407.)  Immersion,  then,  would  not  enhance 
the  evidence,  and  hence  give  no  better  title  to  communion 
than  they  now  possess. 

"In  this  country  [America]  it  seems  to  be  generally 
admitted  as  a  truth  that,  without  loving  each  other  less,  all 
Christians  can  act  more  efficiently  by  resolving  themselves 
into  churches  constituted  on  their  own  views  in  regard  to 
those  divine  ordinances  which  it  is  part  of  the  duty  of  those 
organizations  as  such  to  uphold. ''*  Again:  "To  each  of 
these  it  belongs  to  celebrate  it  as  one  family.  The  mem- 
bers of  that  particular  church  are  to  be  tarried  for,  and  it 
is  to  be  a  symbol  of  their  relations  as  members  to  each 
other.  Other  things  are  no  doubt  signified,  but  this  none 
the  less.  In  all  ordinary  cases  it  should  be  partaken  of  by 
each  Christian  in  the  particular  church  of  which  he  is  a 
member.'^f  Again  :  "  Each  church  is  a  living  body,  to 
which  the  Savior  has  given  in  charge  both  the  oracles  and 
ordinances.  All  agree  that  it  is  a  duty  of  visible  churches 
as  such  to  uphold  baptism  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge 
and  power,  although  not  uniting  as  to  the  nature  and  sub- 
jects of  baptism.'"!  Again  :  "Another  mistake  often  made 
is,  that  we  are  supposed  at  least  to  'unchurch'  all  other 
denominations,  or  say  in  effect  that  we  do  not  consider  them 
true  visible  churches  of  Christ. "§     We  are  glad  to  see  this 


*■  Curtis's  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  p.  291.  f  Ibid.  p.  807. 

X  Ibid.  p.  309.  f  Ibid.  p.  404. 


CONCESSIONS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS.  89 


mistake  corrected.  If  Professor  Curtis  can  prove  that  a 
true  visible  church  of  Christ  is  not  entitled  to  sacramental 
communion  with  the  Baptist  Church,  he  can  prove  any 
thing. 

Mr.  Remington,  in  his  "Farewell  Letter  to  his  late 
[Methodist]  Charge/'  observes,  "  I  am  soon  to  take  up  my 
lot  and  inheritance  with  another  tribe  of  our  common  Israel; 
and  the  recollection  that  we  belong  to  the  same  common 
family  will  always  afford  me  no  small  degree  of  pleasure.'* 
But  all  the  tribes  of  ancient  Israel,  without  distinction,  had 
an  equal  right  to  the  Passover,  which  has  been  substituted 
by  the  Lord's  Supper.  What  "pleasure''  can  the  "recol- 
lection that  we  belong  to  the  same  common  family"  afford 
him  who  shuts  other  members  of  the  family  out  of  doors  ? 
Why  should  Mr.  Remington  leave  one  tribe  for  another,  or 
refuse  the  I/ord's  Supper  to  those  who  he  acknowledges 
"belo^^'  with  him  "to  the  same  common  family"  ?  This 
concession  of  Mr.  Remington  virtually  cancels  his  renuncia- 
tion of  the  Methodists.  But  he  goes  further,  much  further, 
and  avows  the  warmest  attachment  of  a  spiritual  child  for 
the  Methodist  Church.  Says  he,  "I  love  the  Methodist 
Church.  I  love  her  for  her  simplicity,  for  her  zeal,  for  her 
unity  of  evangelical  faith,  for  her  experimental  and  prac- 
tical piety,  for  her  revival-spirit,  for  her  zeal  in  the  mission- 
ary cause,  for  her  activity  in  every  religious  and  benevolent 
enterprise,  for  her  institutions  by  which  to  fan  up  the  flame 
of  vital  godliness  in  the  church  and  to  keep  her  membership 
alive  to  God.  Why  should  I  not  love  her?  She  has  been  a 
mother  to  me.  She  took  me  in  youth  and  inexperience,  and 
bore  with  my  ignorance  and  mistakes.  She  has  carried  me  in 
her  arms,  and  always  treated  me  with  the  utmost  kindness 
and  tenderness.  Under  Grod,  I  owe  much  to  her  instruction, 
forbearance,  and  fostering  care.  I  leave  her  communion 
with   deep  emotion.      I  leave  her  ministry  with  feelings 


90  CONCESSIONS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


unutterable;  for  there  are  hundreds  in  \iQY  self-sacrificing 
ministrT/  to  whom  my  heart  has  been  weided  by  many  a 
'tie  that  binds  our  hearts  in  Christian  love/  I  leave  a 
fiourishing  church  to  go  to  another  equally  so  :  and  remem- 
ber, this  is  my  last  prayer  while  withiu  the  walls  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  : — '  Peace  be  within  thy  walls,, 
and  prosperity  within  thy  palaces  !'  ^^'^  One  would  think, 
from  reading  these  "farewell'^  sentences,  that  Mr.  Remington 
had  wellnigh  finished  his  earthly  pilgrimage,  and  was  pre- 
pared to  go  home  to  heaven,  had  he  not  told  us  that  he 
was  going  to  join  the  Baptist  Church.  At  least  he  was,  it 
seems,  in  a  fair  way  to  be  saved,  and  in  a  church  itself 
doing  great  good ;  and  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would  have 
run  greater  jeopardy  of  being  finally  lost  by  continuing  in 
the  Methodist  Church  till  death  than  he  now  does  in  the 
Baptist  Church.  How  any  man,  with  so  n.any  excellent 
reasons  to  continue  in,  could  retire  from,  the  Methodist 
Church,  has  never  yet  been  made  sufficiently  plain  in  argu- 
ment; or  why  he  should  decline  sacramenial  communion 
with  his  own  spiritual  mother  and  brethren  and  sisters, 
and  perhaps  spiritual  children,  can  never  be  reasonably 
vindicated. 

Mr.  Kinghorn,  and  all  other  close  communion  Baptists, 
affirm  that  ''■  the  church  of  Christ,  acting  upon  the  rule  he 
has  laid  down,  cannot  recognise  any  person  as  his  disciple 
who  is  not  baptized  in  his  name."*!"  And  yet  Mr.  Kinghorn 
often  expresses  his  confidence  in  the  piety  of  the  Pedobap- 
tists,  and  acknowledges  that  he  does  not  exclude  them  from 
communion  because  of  "suspicions  attaching  to  their  Chris- 
tian character.'^ I     And  so  Baptist  writers  generally  con- 


*  Remington's  Reasons  for  Becoming  a  Baptist,  pp.  62,  63. 
•f  Kinghorn's  Baptism  a  Term  of  Communion,  p.  140. 
X  rbid.  p.  67. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  91 


cede.  On  this  palpable  inconsistency  Mr.  Hall  remarks, 
"While  the  advocates  of  strict  communion  are  shocked  at 
the  idea  of  suspecting  the  piety  of  their  Pedobaptist 
brethren,  they  contend  it  would  be  criminal  to  recognise  it 
in  the  church.  What  mysterious  place  is  this,  in  which 
we  are  forbidden  to  acknowledge  a  truth  proclaimed  with- 
out scruple  everywhere  else  ? — which  possesses  the  property 
of  darkening  every  object  enclosed  within  its  limits,  and 
of  rendering  Christians  invisible  and  impalpable  to  each 
other?  In  the  broad  daylight  of  the  world,  notwithstanding 
their  minor  differences,  they  are  recognised  with  facility; 
but  the  moment  we  enter  the  sombrous  gloom  of  a  Baptist 
church  we  are  lost  from  each  others'  view,  and,  like  those 
who  visited  the  cave  of  Trophonius,  return  pale,  dejected, 
and  bewildered.  Of  such  societies  we  might  be  almost 
tempted  to  exclaim,  ^  My  soul,  come  not  thou  into  their 
secret,  and  to  their  assembly  be  not  thou  united  !'  Shocked 
as  we  are  at  such  illiberality,  we  suppress  the  emotions 
which  naturally  arise  on  the  occasion,  remembering  (strange 
as  it  may  seem)  how  often  it  is  associated  with  talents  the 
most  respectable  and  piety  the  most  fervent."* 

The  entertainment  of  an  opinion  admitted  not  to  be  in 
opposition  to  salvation  nor  pernicious  in  practice  cannot 
justify  exclusion  from  sacramental  communion.  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  pious  Pedobaptists  are  in  a  state  of  salvation, 
and  that  they  will  be  finally  saved.  That  their  opinions 
are  not  pernicious  in  practice  therefore  follows ;  for  what  is 
pernicious  in  practice  is  in  opposition  to  salvation.  Pious 
Pedobaptists,  therefore,  should  not  be  excluded  from  sacra- 
mental fellowship ;  that  is,  until  it  can  be  shown  that  the 
opinions  and  practice  of  pious  Pedobaptists  are  in  opposi- 
tion to  salvation,  they  cannot  be  justly  excluded  from  the 

«  Tlnirp  Works  vol.  i.  pp.  422. 


92  CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


Lord's  table.  In  other  words,  a  general  rule  made  and 
enforced  in  indication  of  the  purity  and  efficiency  of  the 
gospel,  but  which  excludes  from  sacramental  fellowship 
those  who  are  acknowledged  to  be  among  the  purest  and 
most  efficient  witnesses  of  the  gospel,  cannot  be  obligatory, 
and  should  be  annulled,  since  it  deprives  of  a  privilege  to 
which  such  witnesses  are  entitled  by  the  gospel  itself. 
Such  a  rule  is  not  susceptible  of  any  proof,  either  by  the 
principles  of  Scripture  or  by  any  reasoning  whatever. 
^'Instead  of  losing  ourselves  in  a  labyrinth  of  metaphysical 
subtleties,  our  only  safe  guide  is  an  appeal  to  facts;  and 
here  we  find  from  experience  that  the  sentiments  of  the 
Pedobaptist  may  consist  with  the  highest  attainments  of 
piety  exhibited  in  modern  times,  with  the  most  varied  and 
elevated  forms  of  moral  grandeur,  without  impairing  the 
zeal  of  missionaries,  without  impeding  the  march  of  con- 
fessors to  their  prisons  or  of  martyrs  to  the  flames.'"^ 


CHAPTER  yil. 

CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS,    (CONTINUED.) 

The  reply  of  the  Baptists  to  the  argument  drawn  from 
spiritual  communion  enjoyed  by  the  Pedobaptists  at  the 
Lord's  table  is  amusing;  and  we  give  Dr.  Howell's  reasoning 
as  an  example  : — "  But  a  moment's  thought,^'  says  he,  ^'  is 
necessary  to  show  that  all  this,  and  much  more  of  the  same 
character,  is  the  merest  verbal  nonsense.  Do  they  mean  ta 
say  that  Jesus  Christ  comes  literally  to  their  table,  and 
actually  eats  bread  and  drinks  wine  with  them,  when  they 

*-  Hall's  AVorks,  vol.  i.  p.  349. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  93 


celebrate  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  How  then 
does  he  commune  with  them  on  earth  ?  By  sympathy  with 
them,  by  bestowing  his  favor  on  tbein,  and  by  the  blessings 
of  his  holy  Spirit.'^*  We  reply.  Do  the  Baptists  mean 
to  say  that  Christ  comes  literally  to  their  table,  and  actually 
eats  bread  and  drinks  wine  with  them,  when  thei/  celebrate 
his  sacramental  supper  ?  Not  at  aM.  How  then  does  he 
commune  with  them  ?  By  sympathy  with  them,  by  bestow- 
ing his  favor  on  them,  and  by  the  blessings  of  his  Spirit  in 
the  proper  observance  of  the  eucharist.  Pious  Pedobaptists 
claim  no  more  for  themselves ;  and  hence  they  have  as  good 
an  evidence  of  the  spiritual  presence  of  Christ  in  their 
hearts  and  of  his  sanction  in  celebrating  the  sacrament  of 
his  Supper  as  the  Baptists  have.  In  what  other  sense  does 
Christ  commune  with  the  Baptists  in  the  sacramental 
observance  ?  Do  they  mean  that  Christ  is  literally  present 
in  the  bread  and  wine,  or  that  he  is  spiritually  present  in 
those  symbols?  If  the  former,  then  they  are  Roman 
Catholics ;  if  the  latter,  then  they  have  adopted  the  ejvifc 
of  Luther  on  the  subject  of  the  eucharist.  If  they  nieau 
neither,  then  the  doctor's  reply  is  ^'  the  merest  verbal  non- 
sense," since  pious  Pedobaptists  mean  just  what  the  Bap- 
tists mean  when  they  say  that  Christ  communes  with  them 
in  the  celebration  of  his  supper.  I  leave  the  reader  to 
determine  which  have  the  better  right  to  the  eucharist,  as 
Christ  "  bestows  his  favor  and  the  blessings  of  his  Spirit"  on 
both  equally  and  without  distinction. 

The  reply  of  the  Baptists  to  the  argument  drawn  from 
the  heavenly  communion  is  not  even  a  plausible  sophism, 
but  a  palpable  absurdity.  It  is,  *'  We  do  not  know  on 
what  laws  the  communion  of  saints  will  proceed.''  The 
fact  of  the  heavenly  communion  is  all  that  is  material  to 

*■  Terms  of  Commnnion,  p.  U.S. 


94  CONCESSIONS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


the  argument ;  and  this  is  conceded.  The  manner  of  the 
heavenly  communion  is  immaterial  j  but,  whatever  the 
manner  may  be,  we  know,  from  the  Scriptures,  that  it  will 
be  spiritual,  and  this  we  know  from  experience  is  the  Mature 
of  the  communion  of  saints  on  earth.  This  is  one  point 
of  identity.  The  heavenly  communion  will  be  universal ; 
spiritual  communion  \)n  earth  is  universal;  and  this  is 
another  feature  of  identity.  The  heavenly  communion  will 
be  founded  upon  a  holy  nature ;  spiritual  communion  on 
earth  is  founded  upon  a  holy  nature ;  and  this  is  another 
feature  of  identity.  The  heavenly  communion  will  proceed 
upon  the  immutable  principles  of  the  divine  nature; 
spiritual  communion  on  earth  proceeds  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciples; and  this  is  another  feature  of  identity.  The 
heavenly  communion  will  be  an  advance  upon  the  spiritual 
communion  of  the  saints  on  earth,  taking  up  in  it  all  the 
preceding  stages  of  spiritual  progress  on  earth,  as  the 
matured  fruit  is  but  the  perfection  and  consummation  of  the 
-Hjive  antecedent  process  of  development,  and  holds  the 
V  ^^  that  a  part  does  to  a  whole  or  the  incipiency  does 
to  t  ^  ^'  ad.  What  is  open  and  free  in  a  retributive  state 
shouk.  not  be  embarrassed  or  restricted  in  a  probationary 
state,  siace  ,tl^'»  latter  state  is  preparatory  to  the  former; 
and,  theretcre,  restricted  communion,  being  opposed  to 
spiritual  communion,  places  the  two  states  of  the  church  in 
opposition.  What  is  not  right  on  earth  cannot  be  ratified 
in  heaven ;  and  what  is  right  in  heaven  cannot  be  wrong  on 
earth.  But  all  Christians  do  commune  with  each  other  in 
heaven :  therefore  all  Christians  should  commune  with  each 
other  on  earth.  No  church  has  authority  to  impose  on  its 
members  what  will  not  be  ratified  in  heaven  ;  and  only  what 
is  imposed  consistently  with  the  gospel  will  be  ratified  in 
heaven.  But  open  communion  is  practised  by  all  the  saints 
in  heaven ;  and,  therefore,  what  the  Baptist  Church  in  this 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  95 


particular  "binds  on  earth  will  be  loosed  in  heaven 3"  and 
so  what  will  be  "loosed"  in  heaven  surely  never  should  be 
"bound"  or  practised  on  earth,  for  the  Supreme  Legislator 
never  will  ratify  the  abuse  of  his  laws,  nor  sanction  a  prac- 
tice of  his  church  on  earth  which  clashes  with  the  practice 
of  his  church  in  heaven ;  and  the  church,  if  possible,  should 
correct  on  earth  what  will  be  corrected  in  heaven.  Saints 
will  commune  with  angels  in  heaven :  certainly  saints  are 
worthy  of  communion  with  each  other  on  earth.  The  sup- 
position that  the  manner  of  spiritual  communion  in  heaven 
will  be  different  from  sacramental  communion  on  earth  is 
admissible;  but  the  difference  supposed  does  not  prevent 
the  external  communion  of  all  the  saints  in  heaven, — for  the 
internal  spiritual  communion  entitles  to  the  external  com- 
munion, whatever  it  is.  That  is,  whatever  are  the  outward 
forms  and  privileges  of  the  heavenly  communion,  all  the 
saints  are  admitted  to  them,  and  they  have  no  better  title 
to  these  than  they  have  to  the  outward  forms  and  privileges 
of  church- worship  on  earth :  indeed,  because  they  have  a  title 
to  the  former  they  have  a  title  to  the  latter;  or,  rather, 
because  they  have  a  title  to  the  latter  they  have  a  title  to 
the  former;  for  no  one  has  a  right  to  the  privileges  and 
blessings  of  the  church  in  heaven  who  has  not  a  right  to 
the  blessings  and  privileges  of  the  church  on  earth.  Set 
aside  the  right  of  any  one  to  the  privileges  of  the  church  in 
heaven,  and  you  have  set  aside  his  right  to  the  privileges 
of  the  church  on  earth, — and  not  before.  Admit  the  right 
of  any  one  to  the  privileges  of  the  church  in  heaven,  and 
you  have  admitted  his  right  to  the  privileges  of  the  church 
on  earth ;  and  no  argument  can  set  aside  this  right.  Heaven 
is  a  place  inconceivably  happy,  holy,  and  glorious;  and  why 
a  title  to  this  place,  with  all  its  privileges,  does  not  neces- 
sarily involve  a  title  to  a  seat  at  the  Lord's  table  on  earth, 
can   never  be  made  out.      Communion  with  Grod  is  the 


96  CONCESSIONS   OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


highest  communion  of  which  holy  men  and  angels  are 
capable ;  and  why  a  right  to  this  communion  in  the  highest 
heaven  is  not  enough  to  entitle  saints  to  sacramental  com- 
munion on  earth  can  never  be  shown.  I  see  not  how  God 
can  any  more  condemn  his  church  for  admitting  his  children 
to  his  table  on  earth  than  he  can  condemn  himself  for 
admitting  his  children  to  his  presence  in  heaven ;  that  is, 
how  God  can  any  more  condemn  his  church  for  admitting 
to  his  table  on  earth  those  of  his  children  whom  she  believes 
to  be  in  error  than  he  can  condemn  himself  for  admitting  to 
his  presence  in  heaven  those  of  his  children  whom  he  knows 
to  be  involuntarily  in  error, — admitting  that  they  are  in 
error.  What  higher  or  safer  standard  can  the  church  have 
for  its  conduct  than  the  conduct  of  God  himself?  or  what 
better  plea  can  the  church  offer  for  its  course  in  so  plain  a 
case  than  the  course  of  God  himself?  Surely  that  zeal  fur 
God  must  be  extravagant  which  transcends  the  bounds  God 
has  fixed  for  himself.  In  such  a  case  I  say  to  God  he  must 
modify  his  course  and  harmonize  it  with  mine  to  protect 
his  government  and  laws;  and  so  I  exalt  myself  above  God, 
and  subject  my  conscience,  and  aim  to  subject  the  consciences 
of  others,  to  the  authority  of  a  law  unknown  in  the  entire 
system  of  obligations.  From  the  very  nature  and  tendency 
of  such  a  lofty  position  ought  I  not  to  suspect  that  I  have 
committed  a  serious  error  of  some  sort?  In  settling  the 
principles  of  my  conduct,  I  cannot  do  right  when  I  deviate 
from  the  conduct  of  God.  Whatever  may  be  my  convictions 
and  impressions,  derived  from  habit,  education,  and  religious 
associations,  or  however  the  success  and  permanence  of  my 
peculiar  tenets  and  practices  may  be  involved  in  the  con- 
tinuance of  my  present  course,  I  must  alter  or  abandon  it, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  at  once,  if  it 
clash,  and  as  far  as  it  clashes,  with  the  conduct  of  God  :  as 
though  God  commanded  me  out  of  heaven  in  an  audible 


CONCESSIONS    or    THE    BAPTISTS.  97 


voice  to  obey,  I  must  obey,  though  my  sect,  as  a  separate 
sect,  in  the  instant  of  obedience  vanish  from  the  world. 
Whether  such  would  be  the  fate  of  the  Baptist  Church  upon 
the  abandonment  of  strict  communion  is  not  the  question; 
but  the  conclusive  vindication  of  pious  Pedobaptists  to  sacra- 
mental communion,  and  the  utter  refutation  of  the  claims 
of  the  Baptists  to  restricted  communion,  are  contained  in 
the  concessions  of  the  Baptists  in  regard  to  the  heavenly 
communion ;  for  the  principles,  rights,  and  privileges 
involved  in  it,  and  the  conduct  of  God  deducible  from  it, 
form  a  sure  and  solid  basis  on  which  open  communion  is 
established  and  strict  communion  overturned. 

Dr.  Howell's  reply  to  the  argument  from  the  anticipated 
communion  in  heaven  is  equally  amusing  with  the  pre- 
ceding. '^We  shall  commune,  say  they,  [Pedobaptists,]  in 
heaven.  Why  not,  therefore,  commune  together  on  earth  ? 
Is  it  true  that  we  shall  actually  sit  down  at  the  communion- 
table in  heaven 'and  literally  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  in  a 
sacramental  sense  ?  No  one,  I  imagine,  supposes  that  such 
will  be  the  case.  If  not, — if  we  happily  reach  ^  the  better 
land,' — our  communion  will  be  wholly  spiritual.  We  shall, 
therefore,  assuredly,  never  commune  with  Pedobaptists  in 
any  manner  in  heaven  in  which  we  do  not  now  commune 
with  them  on  earth."*  That  is,  as  the  communion  of  saints 
in  heaven  will  not  be  in  eating  literal  bread  and  wine,  but 
wholly  spiritual,  therefore  we  shall  never  commune  with 
Baptists  in  heaven  otherwise  than  as  we  now  commune  with 
them  on  earth.  This  is  a  conclusion  false  in  fact,  for  the 
Baptists  do  not  on  earth  commune  with  Pedobaptists  at  all 
in  a  sacramental  sense, — which  is  undeniably  a  manner  of 
communion  not  observed  in  heaven.  Besides,  if  the  absence 
of  literal  sacramental  communion  will  open  the  way  for 


Terms  of  Communion,  pp.  113,  114. 
1) 


98  CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    CAmSTS. 


spiritual  communion  in  heaven,  why  should  the  presence 
of  the  formjr  prevent  the  latter  on  earth  ?  If  in  heaven 
— where  there  is  no  sacramental  communion — all  saints 
enjoy  spiritual  communion,  why  should  not  all  saints  enjoy 
sacramental  communion  on  earth  ?  If  all  saints  shall  enjoy 
spiritual  communion  with  each  other  in  heaven, — where,  so 
far  as  we  know,  there  is  no  sort  of  sacramental  communion, 
— why  should  they  not  all  enjoy  spiritual  communion  with 
each  other  in  the  sacramental  observance  on  earth  ?  Why 
raise  a  barrier  to  spiritual  communion  on  earth  which  can 
have  no  place  in  heaven  ?  Further :  we  shall  not  pray 
together  in  heaven  :  why  do  Baptists  pray  with  Pedobaptists 
on  earth?  Nor  shall  we  preach  in  heaven,  and  conse- 
quently cannot  exchange  pulpits  there :  why  do  Baptists 
exchange  pulpits  with  Pedobaptists  on  earth  ?  Finally:  if 
the  eucharist  is  the  symbol  of  Christ^s  sacrificial  death  and 
the  pledge  of  the  bestowment  of  spiritual  communion  in 
heaven, — and  consequently,  when  the  pledge  is  redeemed 
and  the  design  of  the  symbol  consummated,  the  eucharist 
will  no  longer  be  of  any  service, — why  then  repel  the  saints 
from  the  eucharist  while  as  a  symbol  and  a  pledge  it  is  of 
service  ? 

The  concession  that  pious  Pedobaptist  churches  do  right 
in  observing  the  Lord's  Supper  involves  more  than  the 
Baptists  seem  to  imagine.  The  Baptists  consider  the  irre- 
sistible evidences  which  pious  Pedobaptists  give  of  Christian 
character,  and  they  are  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  they 
have  an  incontestable  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper  in  their 
own  churches;  but  the  question  of  open  communion  is 
another  matter,  involving,  as  they  indeed  needlessly  sup- 
pose, the  abandonment  of  exclusive  immersion  and  the 
suspension  of  opposition  to  infant  baptism.  These  are  the 
real  difticulties;  and  so  they  cut  the  gordian  knots  by  setting 
up  a   ncparate  communion.      But   it  docs   not  follow  that, 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  99 


while  Pedobaptists  do  right  in  observing  the  eucharlst  iu 
their  churches,  that  the  Baptists  do  riglit  in  dcclicing  to 
commune  with  them.  One  thing  is  most  obvious  :  the 
Baptists  encounter  the  piety  of  those  whom  they  regard  as 
unbaptized;  and  a  real  apprehension  exists  lest,  if  com- 
munion with  pious  Pedobaptists  be  allowed,  the  Baptist 
Church  will  ultimately  be  absorbed  in  the  Pedobaptiyt 
churches.  This  is  the  opinion  of  Baptist  writers  generally, 
and  Professor  Curtis  may  answer  for  the  rest. 

In  referring  to  tlie  history  of  mixed  communion  iu  the 
Baptist  Church  in  England,  he  says,  '^  By  degrees  the 
practice  Robert  Hall  recommended  became  exceedingly 
current  in  the  Baptist  churches  in  that  country.  To  such 
lengths  were  matters  carried  that  many  openly  declared 
themselves  not  Baptist  churches  in  any  sense  of  the  word, 
or  attached  to  any  particular  denomination,  but  simply 
Christian.  Sprinkling  and  immersion  were  performed  iu 
the  same  house  of  worship,  as  they  are  in  some  of  these 
places  to  this  day.  Pedobaptist  ministers  were  called  and 
settled  as  pastors  when  the  numbers  of  persons  of  that 
persuasion  became  the  majority, — as  they  must  frequently 
become  in  a  country  where  the  proportion  of  Baptists  is  so 
exceedingly  small.  They  were  sometimes  preferred  as  able 
and  willing  to  accommodate  all  parties,  which  Baptists  could 
not.  The  result  of  this  was  found  to  be  that  Baptist 
churches  lost  their  distinctive  character  and  influence  :  the 
Pedolaptist  churches  lost  none  of  theirs.  And  thus  the 
question  naturally  evolved  itself,  whether  it  was  the  duty — 
whether  it  was  right,  in  fact — in  those  who  conscientiously 
believed  in  Baptist  sentiments  to  give  up  so  powerful  a 
source  of  influence  in  their  favor  as  that  of  church-organiza- 
tion.'^'^ Self-preservation,  then,  is  at  the  foundation  of  strict 

*  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  pp.  288,  289. 


100  CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


communion.  It  is  demonstrative  of  the  weakness  of  a  cause 
when  it  cannot  survive  the  test  of  piety  and  Christian 
fellowship.  The  Baptists  reiterate  from  the  pulpit  and  the 
press  that  the  Pedobaptists  want  light,  or  will  not  submit 
to  the  guidance  of  the  light^  in  so  plain  a  case  as  that  of 
immersion  ;  and  3'et;  when  they  consent  to  sit  together  with 
them  at  the  Lord's  table,  they  ^'  lose  their  distinctive  cha- 
racter and  influence  as  Baptists/'  while  the  Pedobaptists 
are  changed  in  no  respect.  But  why  should  the  Baptists 
be  so  apprehensive  of  the  Pedobaptists?  In  order  to  open 
communion  there  is  no  necessity  of  the  abandonment  of 
distinctive  features  and  principles,  or  of  blending  outward 
institutions,  or  of  breaking  down  the  institutions  of  each 
other,  or  of  perfect  unanimity  of  opinion  in  all  things, 
especially  in  things  not  essential  to  salvation  and  touching 
outward  institutes.  There  is  no  necessity  of  one  church 
being  absorbed  in  another,  or  of  engaging  with  each  other 
in  church-government,  but  simj^ly  to  commune  with  each 
other,  as  the  open-communion  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists 
now  do  in  England.  The  unity  of  the  visible  church  does 
not  consist  in  subjection  to  one  temporal  head,  as  is  claimed 
by  the  Papist;  nor  does  it  consist  in  subjection  to  one 
universal  form  of  church-government  and  ecclesiastical  laws 
as  administered  by  men,  for  these  may  vary  in  different 
churches  without  touching  the  unity  of  the  church ;  nor 
does  it  consist  in  a  universal  subordination  to  one  invariable 
form  of  the  ministry.  It  consists  in  subjection  to  Christ  as 
the  only  Head  of  the  visible  church,  in  the  one  faith  which 
unites  every  believer  to  that  Head,  in  the  one  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  which  unites  the  whole  body  of  believers  in  one 
invisible  church,  and  in  professing  at  least  to  observe  the 
sacraments  of  the  gospel.  He  that  has  these  qualifications, 
to  say  nothing  of  him  who  conscientiously  omits  the  sacra- 


CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  101 


ments,  has  a  right  to  sacramental  communioD  with  the 
visible  church. 

The  ground  taken  by  the  Baptists  is  wrong,  or  their  con- 
cessions are  wrong.  They  must  either  abandon  their  ground 
or  withdraw  their  concessions.  There  is  no  help  :  one  or 
the  other  must  be  done.     Let  us  see. 

We  have  already  considered  their  concessions  at  length, 
and  we  argue.  They  admit  that  Pedobaptists  are  ''  Christians 
and  Christian  churches,^^  though  not  "regularly-formed 
Christian  churches.^'  They  admit  that  they  already  belong 
to  "  the  invisible  church,  the  household  of  faith ;''  they 
exchange  pulpits,  &c. ;  they  concede  that  they  have  the 
sanction  and  blessing  of  God  on  themselves  and  their  works ; 
in  a  word,  that  all  they  lack  to  constitute  them  out-and-out 
Christian  churches  is  irnmersion, — that  is,  haptism  in  the 
Bai^tist  sense.  Now,  we  reply  that  the  Bible  furnishes  no 
ground  whatever  for  the  kind  of  church  which  they  suppose 
the  Pedobaptist  churches  are.  The  Bible  furnishes  no 
ground  on  which  they  may  recorjnlse  Pedobaptist  churches 
to  the  extent  tliey  do  and  yet  exclude  them  from  churck- 
fellowship  or  sacramental  communion.  Not  one  word, 
precept,  or  example  can  be  found  in  the  Bible  for  this  sort 
of  recognition  or  half-ground.  The  Bible  knows  no  middle 
ground.  The  Pedobaptist  churches  are  true  churches,  or 
no  churches.  They  cannot  be  churches  and  not  churches 
at  the  same  time.  They  may  not  be  perfect  churches,  for 
no  churches  on  earth  are  perfect,  and  never  will  be  till  the 
millennium.  If  perfection  be  indispensable  to  sacramental 
communion,  then  the  Baptist  Church  has  no  right  to  it;  for 
it  is  not  a  perfect  church,  admitting — which  we  do  not — 
that  it  approaches  nearer  perfection  than  any  other  church. 
The  Bible  makes  allowances  for  imperfections, — not  for 
d  either  ate  or  hahitual  or  inveterate  sins.  If  a  body  of 
Christians    may  be  recognised  as  a  Christian  church  not- 

9* 


102  CONCESSIONS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


withstanding  its  imperfections,  it  cannot  be  excluded  from 
church-fellowship  or  sacramental  communion,  for  there  is 
no  ground  on  which  this  can  be  done.  A  church  main- 
taining heresy  in  doctrine,  practising  profligacy  in  life_,  and 
observing  corruptions  in  worship  cannot  be  recognised  as 
a  Christian  church  in  any  sense ;  for  such  a  body  is  ''  a 
stranger  to  the  household  of  faith  and  an  alien  from  the 
commonwealth  of  Israel,''  and  so  must  be  excluded  from 
sacramental  communion.  But  a  church  that  does  not 
deviate  so  far  in  rites,  ceremonies,  and  forms  of  worship 
from  the  gospel  as  to  divest  it  of  the  nature,  efficiency,  and 
evidence  of  a  Christian  church  cannot  be  excluded  from 
church-fellowship  or  sacramental  communion.  The  moment 
such  a  church  is  admitted  to  be  a  Christian  church  its 
imperfections  cannot  justify  its  exclusion  from  church - 
fellowship  or  sacramental  communion :  otherwise,  the 
exclusion  sets  aside  the  admission  ;  and  there  is  no  ground 
in  reason  or  the  Bible  on  which  this  can  be  done.  Thus, 
the  ground  assumed  by  the  Baptists  is  wrong,  or  their  con- 
cessions are  wrong;  and  consequently  they  must  withdraw 
their  concessions,  or  admit  pious  Pedobaptist  churches  to 
sacramental  communion.  Until  they  withdraw  their  con- 
cessions, we  shall  consider  them  as  sufficient  reasons  why 
they  should  commune  sacramentally  with  pious  Pedobaptist 
churches,  and  as  a  complete  refutation  of  the  ground  on 
which  they  exclude  the  latter  from  the  Lord's  table. 
Unchurch  us  utterly,  or  admit  us  to  the  Lord's  tabic. 

A  system  inconsistent  with  itself  cannot  be  true;  because 
truth  is  necessarily  consistent.  No  air  of  sincerity,  no 
protestations  of  affection,  no  concessions  and  compromises 
of  policy,  no  ornaments  of  eloquence,  no  vigilance  of  art, 
can  invest  error  with  the  harmony  absolutely  essential  to 
truth,  or  prevent  it  from  being  detected  and  exposed  when 
compared  with  truth.      A  system  connected  with  so  many 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  103 


and  such  concessious  and  consequences  cannot  be  true. 
The  concessions  of  the  Baptists  contain  inevitable  self- 
contradictions  which  are  fatal  to  theiu.  If  the  concessions 
be  true, — and  they  are  true, — the  pretensions  of  the  Baptist 
Church  in  regard  to  exclusive  immersion  and  close  com- 
munion are  groundless  and  nugatory.  Which  should  the 
reader  believe  ? — those  who  speak  absurdly  and  contradict 
themselves,  or  those  who  speak  rationally  and  act  con- 
sistently? In  turning  the  concessions  of  the  Baptists 
against  their  distinctive  peculiarities,  we  have  endeavored 
to  do  as  Benaiah  did,  who  "  plucked  the  spear  out  of  a 
goodly  Egyp^an's  hand  and  slew  him  with  it/^  and  in 
the  close  communion  of  the  Baptists  we  are  reminded  of 
Sheba,  the  son  of  Bichri,  a  Benjaminite,  who  blew  a 
trumpet,  and  said,  "^Ye  have  no  part  in  David,  neither 
have  we  inheritance  in  the  son  of  Jesse.  Every  man  to  his 
tents,  0  Israel !  So  every  man  of  Israel  went  up  from 
David  and  followed  Sheba,  the  son  of  Bichri ;  but  the  men 
of  Judah  clave  unto  their  king,  froiu  Jordan  even  to  Jeru- 
salem.'' (2  Sam.  XX.  1-2.) 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

UNFAIRNESS    OP    THE    BAPTISTS. 

In  this  chapter  we  call  attention  to  one  of  the  most 
favorite  and  successful  sophisms  employed  by  the  Baptists 
in  support  of  close  communion.  It  is  that  baptism  has  been 
held  in  all  ages  and  by  all  denominations  as  indispensably 
prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  is  analogous  to 
the  sophism  they  employ  in  proof  of  exclusive  immersion, 
—namely,  that  all  denominations  believe  immersion  is  valid 


104  UNFAIRNESS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


baptism.  In  both  instances  they  endeavor  to  overawe  their 
readers  by  the  weight  of  Pedobaptist  authorities.  Almost 
every  Baptist  writer  on  communion,  from  Abraham  Booth 
down  to  Mr.  Remington,  parades  before  his  reader  a  column 
of  venerable  and  eminent  Pedobaptist  authorities  in  favor 
of  baptism  as  indispensably  prerequisite  to  sacramental 
communion.  We  shall  not  stop  here  to  burden  our  pages 
with  this  august  array,  but  proceed  at  once  to  expose  the 
sophism,  after  having  stated  it  in  the  language  of  its 
authors.* 

'^Nor  is  this  a  new  opinion  or  a  novel  practice;  for  such 
has  been  the  sentiment  and  such  the  conduct  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  in  every  age.  Before  the  grand  Bomish  apos- 
tasy, in  the  very  de^fh  of  that  apostasy,  and  since  the 
Reformation,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  the  general  practice 
has  been  to  receive  none  but  baptized  persons  to  communion 
at  the  Lord's  table :"-("  and  here  follows  a  list  of  learned 


*  I  have  lying  before  me  three  Baptist  works  in  support  of  restricted 
communion.  The  first  is  that  of  Mr.  Booth,  of  England,  in  ''Vindi- 
cation of  the  Baptists,"  republished  in  this  country  in  the  Baptist 
Library,  vol.  i.  The  second  is  "  Terms  of  Communion,"  by  Dr.  Howell, 
And  the  third  is  a  small  pamphlet,  entitled  "A  Defence  of  Restricted 
Communion,"  by  Rev.  S.  Remington.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  these 
three  writers  refer  to  identically  the  same  authorities.  It  is  obvious 
that  Dr.  Howell  has  borrowed  from  Mr.  Booth,  and  Mr.  Remington 
from  Dr.  Howell.  Mr.  Booth,  then,  is  the  source  of  material  for  the 
other  two.  Mr.  B.  in  s^e  instances  has  given  us  the  Latin,  and  in  all 
cases  cited  his  authorities.  Dr.  H.  abridges  the  Latin,  and  gives  the 
very  same  citations,  though  he  abridges  these  too.  Mr.  R.  gives  us  the 
very  same  quotations  without  the  Latin  and  without  authority.  Besides, 
in  other  particulars.  Dr.  H.  borrows  from  Mr.  B.,  and  Mr.  R.  from  Dr. 
H. ;  and  Mr.  B.  gets  no  credit  from  Dr.  H.,  and  Dr.  H.  gets  none  from 
Mr.  R.  Whether  Mr.  B.  deserved  any  from  Dr.  H.  is  uncertain ;  that  Dr. 
H.  deserved  none  from  Mr.  R.  is  certain.  This  is  the  game  these  writers 
play  on  their  readers. 

f  Booth's  Vindication  of  the  Baptists,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  p.  43. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  105 


Pedobaptist  authorities.  Dr.  Howell  takes  the  same  ground  : 
— *'  Baptism  has  been  held  in  all  ages  and  by  all  denomi- 
nations to  be  a  divinely-prescribed  preliminary  to  the  Lord's 
Supper:"*  and  here  follows  the  very  same  learned  list,  and 
in  the  same  order,  adduced  by  Mr.  Booth.  Mr.  Bemingtou 
comes  next.  After  quoting  several  passages  of  Scripture  in 
proof  ^'  that  it  was  the  invariable  practice  of  the  apostles  to 
baptize  all  believers  before  they  were  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
table/'  he  observes,  "■  These  passages  set  forth  baptism  as  a 
divinely-appointed  preliminary  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  which 
has  been  so  held  in  all  ages  since  the  days  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles  by  all  orthodox  denominations."  In  the  next 
sentence  he  quotes  Mr.  Booth : — ''  Mr.  Booth  says,  '  Before 
the  grand  Ptomish  apostasy,  in  the  very  depth  of  that  apos- 
tasy, and  since  the  Reformation,  both  at  home  and  abroad, 
the  general  practice  has  been  to  receive  none  but  baptized 
persons  to  communion  at  the  Lord's  table,'  "  and  then 
observes,  "  This  declaration  of  Mr.  B.  can  be  proved  by  an 
abundance  of  historical  cktta,  which  sets  the  question  under 
consideration  beyond  the  power  of  successful  contradiction.""!" 
And  then  straightway  Mr.  Bemingtou  proves  Mr.  Booth's 
"  declaration"  with  Mr.  Booth's  ''  data,"  for  he  adduces 
Mr.  Booth's  list  of  Pedobaptist  authorities, — the  very  same 
list  and  in  the  very  same  order  which  Dr.  Howell  had  bor- 
rowed from  Mr.  Booth  before  him. J  Mr.  Booth  is  the 
substance,  and  Dr.  Howell  and  Mr.  Remington  are  his 
sliadoics:  if,  then,  we  remove  the  substance,  the  shadows 
must  vanish. 

The  authorities — I  give  them  in  the  very  order  in  which 
each  of  these  writers  quotes  them — are  '^Justin  Martyr. 

*  Howell  on  Communiou,  p.  51. 
t  Remington  on  Restricted  Communion,  p.  8. 

X  R.  Fuller  has  the  same  list;  but  he  honestly  gives  Mr.  Booth  credit 
for  it :  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  2d  ed.,  pp.  234.-2.36. 


106  UNFAIRNESS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS. 


Jerome,  Augustine,  Bode,  Theophylact,  Bouavcnture,  F. 
Spanlieim,  Lord-ChaDcellor  King,  Wall,  Dr.  Manton,  Dr. 
Doddridge,  and  Dr.  Dwight."*  But  all  these  authorities, 
without  exception,  were  Pcdohaptlsts,  believed  in  infant 
baptism,  and  probably  were  all  baptized  in  infancy.  Con- 
sequently they  believed  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  adult 
baptism  in  order  to  sacramental  communion, — which  is  pre- 
cisely the  opinion  of  all  evangelical  Pedobaptists,  and  point- 
blank  against  the  Baptists.  Take  an  example  quoted  by 
Mr.  Booth  &  Co.  ^^  Augustine,  speaking  of  administering 
the  Lord's  Supper  to  infants,  remarks,  '  Of  which  certainly 
they  cannot  partake  unless  they  are  baptized.' "  Of  course, 
then,  Augustine  was  a  Pedohaptht.  So  of  the  rest.  And 
so  of  Mr.  Wesley,  quoted  also  by  Mr.  Booth.  Let  then 
the  Baptists  follow  their  Pedobaptist  authorities  through, 
and  admit  that  Pedobaptist  believers  have  already  the  in- 
dispensable prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  table,  and  receive 
them  accordingly,  or  have  done  with  this  perversion  and 
abuse  of  authorities.  Besides,  these  authorities  did  not 
believe  that  immersion  was  essential  to  baptism, — which 
removes  them  entirely  out  of  the  circle  of  Baptistical  exclu- 
siveness;  for  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  is  no  baptism 
at  all  with  the  Baptists  j  and  the  Baptists  would  repel  the 
authorities  themselves,  if  they  were  alive,  from  the  sacra- 
mental table. 

It  is  admitted  that  many  early  and  modern  authorities 
maintain  that  baptism  is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to 
sacramental  communion.  But  then,  in  the  first  place,  these 
authorities  believed  in  the  exploded  dogma  of  baptismal 
regeneration  ;  and  hence  no  wonder  they  fell  into  the  error 


*  Booth's  Vindication  of  the  Baptists,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  p.  44;  Dr. 
Ilowell's  Terms  of  Communion,  pp.  52-55;  Remington  on  Communion, 
pp.  9-10. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE   BAPTISTS.  107 


that  baptism  is  indispensably  prerequisite  to  sacramental 
communion,  since  no  one  has  a  right  to  the  communion 
who  has  not  been  regenerated.  If  persons  are  regenerated 
in  baptism,  then  these  authorities  were  right.  But  the 
Baptists  do  not  maintain  this  doctrine ;  and  therefore  they 
and  their  authorities  do  not  agree  in  the  main  point  at  issue. 
Secondly,  these  authorities  believed  in  infant  baptism ;  and 
therefore,  in  their  view,  at  the  proper  age  and  after  a  cer- 
tain course  of  instruction,  infants  had  a  right  to  the  com- 
munion. In  this  the  Baptists  and  their  authorities  do  not 
agree.  Thirdly,  these  authorities  did  not  believe  in  ex- 
clusive immersion,  but  in  other  modes  also ;  and  therefore 
in  this  the  Baptists  and  their  authorities  do  not  agree. 
Fourthly,  many  of  these  authorities — the  more  modern — 
positively,  powerfully,  and  unanswerably  opposed  the  pre- 
tensions of  the  Baptists.  It  is  singular,  then,  that  the 
Baptists  should  refer  to  them  as  authorities.  Thus,  in  every 
material  point  the  Baptists  are  not  supported,  but  opposed, 
by  their  authorities.  Had  these  authorities  believed  that 
baptism  is  not  required  in  order  to  regeneration,  they  would 
not  have  considered  it  as  indispensably  prerequisite  to  com- 
munion. Modern  authorities  entertain  sound  views  on  the 
subject,  and  to  them  only  can  we  refer  in  the  argument. 
Now,  do  these  modern  authorities  believe  in  exclusive  im- 
mersion as  baptism  ?  Not  at  all.  If  they  do,  why  do  they 
give  the  sacrament  to  persons  baptized  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring?  They  also  believe  infant  baptism  valid,  and  so, 
upon  repentance  and  faith  in  subsequent  life,  give  the 
sacrament  to  persons  baptized  in  infancy.  Let  the  propo- 
sition be  stated  as  follows, — The  Baptists  believe  immersion 
indispensable  to  admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  emi- 
nent Pedobaptists  believe  the  same, — and  you  will  see  the 
glaring  sophistry  of  the  proposition  in  its  evident  untruth. 
Make  the  proper  distinction  between  baptism  and  immer- 


108  UNFAIRNESS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS. 


sion,  and  the  Pedobaptist  authorities  are   all  against  the 
Baptists. 

We  may  reply  to  this  favorite  position  of  the  Baptists  in 
the  form  of  syllogism  : — 

The^ Baptists  make  baptism  prerequisite  to  sacramental 
communion;  but  the  Pedobaptists  believe  that  they  are 
already  baptized  :  therefore  the  Pedobaptists  have  a  right ' 
to  sacramental  communion.  But  the  Baptists  regard  im- 
mersion as  essential  to  baptism ;  but  the  Pedobaptists  do 
not  regard  immersion  as  essential  to  baptism :  therefore  the 
Baptists  must  first  prove  to  the  Pedobaptists  that  immersion 
is  essential  to  baptism,  before  the  Pedobaptists  can  acknow- 
ledge that  they  have  no  right  to  sacramental  communion. 
This  has  never  been  done, — but  quite  the  contrary  has  been 
done;  and  therefore  the  Pedobaptists  cannot  waive  their 
right  to  the  Lord's  table. 

The  Baptists  adduce  certain  authorities  for  baptism  as 
prerequisite  to  sacramental  communion ;  but  those  authori- 
ties clash  with  the  Baptists  as  to  the  nature  and  mode  of 
baptism :  besides,  they  believed  in  infant  baptism,  which, 
in  the  view  of  the  Baptists,  is  no  baptism  at  all ;  and  there- 
fore they  can  be  no  authority  for  the  exclusiveness  of  the 
Baptists. 

IMany  of  the  authorities  adduced  by  the  Baptists  believed 
that  persons,  though  baptized  in  infancy,  had  no  right  to 
the  Lord's  table  before  confirmation.;  but  this  dogma  both 
the  Baptists  and  we  reject;  and  therefore  these  authorities 
must  be  rejected  by  the  Baptists  themselves.  Besides, 
these  authorities,  who  were  Pedobaptists,  did  not  regard  the 
want  of  confirmation  as  a  bar  to  sacramental  communion 
with  other  churches,  though  they  required  confirmation  in 
their  own  churches,  and  so  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table 
baptized  members  of  other  churches,  though  not  confirmed ; 
and  therefore  these  authorities  are  against  the  Baptists. 


UNFAIRNESS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS.  109 


Lastl}',  the  Baptists  assume  that  the  Scriptures  require 
baptism  as  prerequisite  to  sacramental  communion,  and  they 
regard  immersion  as  essential  to  baptism ;  but  we  think  it 
has  been  proved  again  and  again  that  the  Scriptures  make 
no  such  requisition ;  and  therefore  baptism  should  not  be 
made  a  prerequisite  to  sacramental  communion. 
/  Indeed,  if  it  be  admitted  that  before  the  origin  of  the 
Baptist  Church  the  Christian  church  unanimously  con- 
curred in  considering  baptism  as  a  necessary  preliminary 
to  communion,  a  material  fact  is  to  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration. The  precise  question  now  in  controversy  had 
not  at  this  time  agitated  the  Christian  church,  since  at  this 
time  the  Baptist  Church  did  not  exist ;  and  consequently 
conclusions  from  the  opinions  of  the  Christian  church  to 
favor  the  peculiar  views  of  the  Baptist  Church  subse- 
quently formed  must  be  gratuitous  assumptions  or  deduc- 
tions founded  in  perversion.  Not  one  authority  in  ancient 
times,  nor  one  authority  outside  the  Baptist  Church  in 
modern  times,  can  be  adduced  for  the  dogma  of  the  Baptist 
Church  on  the  subject  of  communion.  Had  such  a  dogma 
arisen  in  early  times,  some  historical  account  of  it  would 
have  been  preserved;  and,  as  neither  party  in  this  contro- 
versy appeals  to  any  thing  of  the  kind,  it  is  incontestable 
that  the  dogma  is  of  modern  date.  As  in  corrupt  early 
ages  the  church  taught  that  baptism  was  absolutely  essential 
to  salvation,  it  is  not  surprising,  we  repeat,  that  it  taught 
also  that  baptism  was  indispensable  to  communion,  which  is 
an  inference  deduced  from  erroneous  premises, — the  Bap- 
tists themselves  being  judges.  How,  then,  can  the  Baptists 
deduce  a  legitimate  conclusion  from  premises  which  they 
would  be  the  first  to  disclaim,  or  support  their  views  by 
premises  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  Papal  Church  ? 
Truth  cannot  be  the  product  of  error.  If  the  Baptists — as 
we  do — reprobate  the  heresy  of  baptismal  regeneration,  let 

10 


110  UNFAIRNESS   OP   THE   BAPTISTS. 


them  refrain  in  future  from  all  attempts  to  overawe  us^  as 
sometimes  they  vainly  attempt  to  do,  by  the  weight  of  au- 
thority by  which  that  heresy  is  supported.  We  cannot  be 
condemned  for  rejecting  conclusions  from  premises  which 
the  Baptists  themselves  would  not  admit  as  legitimate ;  and 
they  are  barely  excusable  for  their  temerity  in  adopting 
such  an  unfair  expedient  to  maintain  their  peculiar  opi- 
nions. 

But,  if  we  are  to  appeal  to  authority,  it  is  wholly  against 
the  Baptists.  The  invincible  Robert  Hall  observes,  ^'  They 
[close-communion  Baptists]  are  the  only  persons  in  the 
world  of  whom  we  have  either  heard  or  read  who  contend 
for  the  exclusion  of  genuine  Christians  from  the  Lord's 
table, — who  ever  attempted  to  distinguish  them  into  two 
classes,  such  as  are  entitled  to  commemorate  their  Savior's 
death  and  such  as  are  excluded  from  that  privilege.  In 
what  page  of  the  voluminous  records  of  the  church  is  such 
a  distinction  to  be  traced  ?  or  what  intimation  shall  we  find 
in  Scripture  of  an  intention  to  create  such  an  invidious 
disparity  among  the  members  of  the  same  body?  Did  it 
ever  enter  the  conception  of  any  but  Baptists  that  a  right 
to  the  sign  could  be  separated  from  the  thing  signified,  or 
that  there  could  be  a  description  of  persons  interested  in  all 
the  blessings  of  the  Christian  covenant  and  yet  not  entitled 
to  partake  of  its  sacraments  and  seals  ?  The  right  of  re- 
jecting those  whom  Christ  has  received,  of  refusing  the 
communion  of  eminently  holy  men  on  account  of  unessential 
difi"erences  of  opinion,  is  not  the  avowed  tenet  of  any  sect 
or  community  in  Christendom  with  the  exception  of  the 
majority  of  the  Baptists,  who,  while  they  are  at  variance 
with  the  whole  world  on  a  point  of  such  magnitude,  are 
loud  in  accusing  their  brethren  of  singularity, — while  thei7' 
singularity  is   replete   with  most   alarming   consequences, 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  Ill 


destroys  at  once  the  unity  and  pronounces  a  sentence  of  ex- 
communication on  the  whole  Christian  world." ^ 

What  advantage  the  Baptists  can  hope  to  obtain  from 
the  opinions  of  Pedobaptists  which  they  are  pleased  to  call 
concessions  it  is  impossible  to  conceive.  If  certain  Pedo- 
baptists believe  that  immersion  was  an  apostolic  mode  of 
baptism,  they  at  the  same  time  maintain  that  other  modes 
were  practised;  and  do  not  the  Baptists  see  that  these 
Pedobaptists  deem  themselves  as  baptized  and  consider  the 
Baptists  as  intolerant  and  exclusive  ?  Again,  if  Pedobap- 
tists in  general  believe  that  none  ought  to  come  to  the 
Lord's  table  who  are  not  baptized,  are  they  not  justly 
offended  with  the  Baptists  for  deeming  them  unbaptized  ? 
Pedobaptists  never  have  conceded  that  they  are  unbaptized : 
on  what  fundamental  law  of  reasoning,  therefore,  can  the 
Baptists  derive  any  advantage  from  a  general  principle  ad- 
mitted by  both  parties  ?  or  how  can  the  Baptists  exclude 
the  Pedobaptists  from  communion  on  the  very  ground  on 
which  they  consider  themselves  entitled  to  it  ?  Do  not  the 
Baptists  perceive  that  their  opinions  have  no  influence  on 
the  practice  of  the  Pedobaptists  ?  The  fact  that  the  internal 
regulation  and  practice  of  Pedobaptist  churches  are  dif- 
ferent from  those  of  the  Baptist  Church  is  conclusive  proof 
that  the  appeal  to  the  opinions  of  Pedobaptists  on  the  sub- 
ject under  consideration  is  utterly  groundless.  So  far  as 
the  Pedobaptists  are  concerned,  they  have  no  interest  in  the 
inquiry  concerning  the  supposed  connection  between  the 
two  sacraments,  for  they  deem  themselves  already  baptized. 

Baptist  writers  possess  a  singular  aptitude  for  using  such 
imposing  and  comprehensive  expressions  as  these  : — ''  In 
the  general  truth  of  this  proposition  all  denominations 
agree;"   "the  pious  and  learned  of  all  ages  and  denomina- 

*-  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  320-321. 


112  UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


tions  fully  concur  witli  us;"  ^'inwhicli  we  have  substan- 
tially the  concurrence  of  most  of  the  Pedobaptist  world;" 
'^we  have  the  concurrence  of  all  Christians  in  every  age 
and  country;"  ^^we  have  the  unanimous  suffrage  of  all  the 
prevailing  denominations ;"  leaving  the  reader  to  solve  the 
wonderful  mystery  why  the  pious  and  learned  of  all  ages 
and  denominations  are  not  Baptists.  Not  a  single  reference 
to  Pedobaptist  authorities,  when  legitimately  applied,  sup- 
ports the  peculiar  pretensions  of  the  Bcqjtisls,  and  in  a 
majority  of  instances  they  furnish  the  most  conclusive 
refutation  of  those  pretensions, — a  species  of  ordnance 
which  the  Baptists  are  unskilful  in  using,  and  whose  fatal 
effect  they  seem  not  to  have  apprehended.  For  example  : 
in  proof  of  the  nature  of  positive  law  Dr.  Howell  quotes 
Dr.  Owen  as  saying,  "  That  principle  that  the  church  hath 
power  to  institute  and  appoint  any  thing,  or  ceremony, 
belonging  to  the  worship  of  God,  either  as  to  matter  or  to 
manner,  beyond  the  orderly  observance  of  such  observances 
as  necessarily  attend  such  ordinances  as  Christ  himself  has 
instituted,  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  horrible  superstition 
and  wars  that  have  for  so  long  a  season  spread  themselves 
over  the  face  of  the  Christian  world. "^'  Dr.  Owen  as  a 
Pedobaptist  was  opposed  to  the  exclusive  use  which  the 
Baptists  make  of  both  the  positive  institutes  of  Christianity; 
and  consequently  this  terrible  sentence  is  made  to  turn  di- 
rectly against  the  Baptist  Church.  Bishop  Hoadley  is 
next  adduced  as  saying,  "There  being  no  other  foundation 
for  them  [the  sacraments]  with  regard  to  us  but  the  will 
of  the  Institutor,  this  will  must  of  necessity  be  our  sole 
direction,  both  as  to  our  understanding  of  their  true  intent, 
and  practising  them  accordingly;  because  we  can  have  no 
other  sort  of  direction  in  this  sort  of  duties,  unless  we  will 

*■  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  25. 


UNFAIRNESS   OP   THE   BAPTISTS.  113 


have  recourse  to  mei^e  invention,  whicli  makes  them  our 
own  institutions,  and  not  the  institutions  of  those  who  first 
appointed  them."*  Bishop  Hoadley  was  a  Pedobaptist;  and 
consequently  that  he  believed  that  the  Baptists,  in  the  use 
of  the  sacraments,  had  ^^  recourse  to  mere  invention,  which 
made  them  their  own,"  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

In  proof  that  many  of  these  very  authorities  believed  in 
baptismal  regeneration,  and  so  maintained  the  connection 
of  the  two  sacraments,  Dr.  Howell  himself  shall  be  ad- 
duced. Says  he,  "A  superficial  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical 
history  is  sufficient  to  convince  any  one  that  but  a  few 
centuries  transpired  after  the  apostles,  before  a  melancholy 
change  was  efi"ected  in  the  opinions  of  the  Christian  world 
with  regard  to  the  design  and  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  of 
the  gospel.  Their  importance  was  magnified  immeasurably, 
and  they  were  soon  believed  to  be  so  intimately  connected 
with  the  vitality  of  religion  that  they  could  not  in  any 
case  be  omitted  without  preventing  the  salvation  of  the 
soul.  la  the  third  century  and  onwards,  the  Christian 
fathers  believed  and  taught  that  sins  were  only  forgiven  in 
baptism,  that  in/ants,  hy  this  ordinance,  ivere  purged  from 
original  pollution,  and  that  all  persons  dying  without  it 
were  lost."'\  Dr.  Howell  had  this  "  superficial  acquaintance 
with  ecclesiastical  history;"  and  hence  he  should  have 
honestly  stated  why  his  Pedobaptist  authorities  maintained 
the  necessary  connection  between  the  two  sacraments.  It 
is  easy  to  see  that  this  is  no  support  of  the  Baptist  view, 
which  holds  the  connection  on  entirely  different  ground. 

This  pious  fraud,  and  others  like  it,  which  Baptist  writers 
and  preachers  sometime  practise  upon  their  readers  and 
hearers,  and  to  which  doubtless  may  be  mainly  ascribed  their 
success,  deserve  particular  notice ;  while  &uch  a  method  of 

*  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  26.      f  Terms  of  Communion,  p.  181. 


114  UNFAIENESS   OP  THE  BAPTISTS, 


maintaining  tlieir  peculiar  tenets  and  practices  not  only  in 
dicates  the  weakness  of  tlieir  claims,  but  is  humiliating  to 
every  man  of  sober  reason  and  candor.  We  shall  mention 
a  few  examples  of  this  captivating  fraud,  though  a  useful 
volume  might  be  written  on  this  topic;  and  any  one  of 
moderate  reading,  and  having  the  leisure,  who  should  write 
a  treatise  entitled  the  '' Unfairness  of  the  Baptists,'^  would 
perform  a  useful  service  to  the  misrepresented  and  deeply- 
injured  Pedobaptist  churches  of  Christ,  as  well  as  open  the 
eyes  of  the  Baptist  Church  itself 

Professor  Curtis,  in  the  very  first  sentence  of  his  book  jen- 
titled  "  The  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles  in  the  Last  Hun- 
dred Years,'^  recently  published,  makes  this  bold  assump- 
tion: — ^' This  volume  might  almost  be  called  'Concessions 
of  Pedobaptists  as  to  the  Errors  of  Infant  Baptism  and  the 
Importance  of  Baptist  Principles/ ^^  We  reply,  from  the 
candid  examination  we  have  given  his  '^  volume,"  it  may  be 
called,  whole  and  entire,  The  Perversions  of  Pedobaptist 
Authorities  in  Support  of  Baptist  Principles.  The  state- 
ment of  the  pious  fraud  is  most  ingeniously  made  in  the 
following  language  : — ''His  aim  has  been  to  draw  a  wide  dis- 
tinction between  parties  and  opinions.  Hence  the  object 
of  this  volume  is  not  to  exhibit  or  defend  the  Baptists,  but 
their princij)les."  Let  this  distinction  be  fairly  made, — which 
we  propose  to  do, — and  if  it  does  not  appear  that  the  "prin- 
ciples'' referred  to  are  not  peculiarly  Baptist  principles, 
but  sound  Pedobaptist  principles  jpei^verted  to  support  Bap- 
tist opinions  and  practices,  then,  in  our  judgment,  there  is 
no  case  of  perversion  in  the  annals  of  time.  Professor  Curtis, 
whose  book  is  now  before  me,  states  five  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Baptist  Church, — namely,  "freedom  of 
conscience,  and  the  entire  separation  of  Church  and  State; 
a  converted  church-membership;  sacraments  inoperative 
without  choice  and  faith ;  believers  the  only  scriptural  sub- 


UNFAIRNESS   OP   THE   BAPTISTS.  115 


jects  of  baptism;  and  immersion  always  the  baptism  of  the 
New  Testament."*  Any  man  of  ordinary  knowledge  of  the 
evangelical  Pedobaptist  churches  knows  that  they  maintain 
the  first  three  of  these  principles ;  and  it  must  have  required 
an  extraordinary  degree  of  presumption  upon  the  ignorance 
of  Americans  to  claim  these  principles  as  4he  peculiar  doc- 
trines of  the  Baptists.  The  last  two  they,  and  they  only, 
claim ;  and  in  the  spirit  of  charity  we  say  they  are  welcome 
to  them.  But,  when  they  attempt  to  support  these  two 
peculiar  tenets  by  Pedobaptist  concessions  and  principles, 
we  are  compelled  to  resist  the  attempt  and  expose  the 
fraud.  Indeed,  this  author  himself  admits,  "  Some  of  these 
[the  last  two]  they  have  held  alone,  and  others  [the  first 
three]  frequently  in  common  with  Christians  of  different 
denominations. "f  In  common  !  in  what  then  is  there  dif- 
ference but  in  the  last  two  ?  and  to  "  defend  the  Baptists'' 
the  last  two  must  be  defended,  and  no  more;  for  the  moment 
the  first  three  are  claimed  the  Baptists  enter  upon  Pedo- 
haptist  ground,  which  of  course  must  support  the  Pedobap- 
tists  as  well  as  the  Baptists :  only  it  is  singular  that  Professor 
Curtis  should  say,  ''it  is  impossible  that  opposite  principles 
should  long  survive  among  enlightened  evangelical  Chris- 
tians."! That  is,  that  the  first  three  should  long  survive 
in  the  progress  of  the  last  two ;  that  is,  that  the  progress 
of  the  Baptist  Church  involves  the  destruction  of  "freedom 
of  conscience,  entire  separation  of  Church  and  State,  a  con- 
verted church-membership,"  &c. 

To  be  more  particular.  This  author  asserts,  "  Many  of 
the  points  which  were  in  dispute  a  hundred  years  ago,  and 
which  were  regarded  as  Baptist  peculiarities,  have  become 
established  principles  of  the  great  unwritten  creed,  the 
general    religious   sentiment,   of  the  whole   country, — the 

*  Progress  of  Baptist  Priaciples,  p.  15.  f  Ibid.  p.  13. 

t  Ibid.  p.  15. 


116  UNFAIRNESS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


common  law,  so  to  speak,  of  American  Christianity."*  A 
sufficient  rebuke  to  this  pompous  swelling  is  that  American 
Christianity  has  not  recognised  this  "common  law''  as 
identical  with  ^^ Baptist  fecidiaritiea,^^  nor  has  the  "whole 
country"  ascribed  "  the  general  religious  sentiment"  to  the 
influence  of  the  Baptist  Church :  only  a  small  part  com- 
paratively has  been  accessible  to  the  influence  of  the  Baptist 
Church,  and  that  influence  (so  far  as  it  is  sound  and  salu- 
tary) arising  indeed  from  Fedohaptist  principles  adopted 
and  transferred  by  degrees  into  the  Baptist  Church.  But 
Professor  Curtis  specifies  an  instance  as  illustrative  of  the 
influence  of  the  Baptist  Church, — "  freedom  of  con- 
science."f  He  mentions  "Boger  Williams  as  the  first 
Christian  legislator  who  introduced  perfect  religious  liberty 
into  the  Constitution  of  any  State."!  But,  in  the  first  place, 
Boger  Williams  brought  with  him  from  England  the  prin- 
ciples of  religious  freedom,  and  was  a  member  of  the  Church 
of  England  when  he  came  to  this  country.  Secondly,  ha 
remained  in  the  Baptist  Church  but  six  months  after  he 
was  immersed.  Thirdly,  he  advocated  and  practised  open 
communion  while  he  remained  in  the  Baptist  Church  and 
after  he  left  it.  Thus,  the  great  founder  of  the  Baptist 
Church  in  America  neither  derived  his  principles  of 
religious  freedom  from  the  Baptist  Church  nor  supported 
the  Baptist  Church  after  he  founded  it !  Certain  is  it, 
therefore,  that  religious  freedom  did  not  appear  to  Boger 
AVilliams  as  "a  necessary  consequence  of  the  distinctive 
pecidiarities  of  the  Baptist  Church,"  as  is  pretended  by 
this  author. §  Besides,  Lord  Baltimore,  the  Proprietor  of 
Maryland,  and  "who  r^ognised  a  general  religious  tole- 
ration," was  a  Boman  Catholic  j   and  AVilliam  Penn,  who 

.    *  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  p.  18.  f  Ibid.  p.  18. 

j;  Ibid.  p.  19.  §Ibid.  p.  19. 


UNFAIRNESS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS.  117 


prepared  his  ^' frame  of  government"  for  Pennsylvania,  was 
a  Quaker;  and  Patrick  Henry  and  Thomas  Jefferson,  who 
were  members  of  no  church,  overturned  religious  intolerance 
in  Virginia, — indeed,  the  latter  wa«  a  Deist;  while  the  Pres- 
hyterians  on  all  hands  are  allowed  to  have  taken  ''  the  lead" 
in  this  great  work ;  and  Washington  was  an  Episcopalian. 
That  the  Baptists  were  borne  along  by  the  mighty  forces  on 
all  sides  in  favor  of  freedom  of  conscience  in  those  times  is 
not  surprising;  but  to  ascribe  freedom  of  conscience  to  the 
influence  of  the  peculiar  tenets  of  the  Baptist  Church 
(immersion  and  close  communion)  is  effrontery  surpassed 
only  by  papal  usurpation  of  authority  over  the  conscience 
itself;  and  when  this  author  affirms  that  '^  the  whole  world 
has  been  coming  round  to  these  great  truths  [the  rights  of 
conscience]  first  embodied,  vindicated,  and  maintained  by 
the  Baptists,^'*  one  is  reminded  of  the  ease  with  which 
sectarian  zeal  can  originate  pious  frauds,  and  to  what  a 
height  infatuation  can  soar.  The  zeal  in  this  case  is 
rebuked,  the  pious  fraud  exposed,  and  aspiration  checked, 
by  the  single  consideration  that  the  American  mind  was 
emancipated  from  the  bondage  of  civil  and  religious  tyranny 
by  the  combined  influence  of  Protestantism,  admitted  on  all 
hands  to  have  operated  on  all  sides,  and  not  through  the 
instrumentality  of  any  particular  church, — indeed,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  embarrassments  and  impediments  necessarily 
involved  in  'Hhe  distinctive  peculiarities  of  the  Baptist 
Church.^'  As  far  as  the  Baptist  Church  has  been  truly 
Protestant  it  has  contributed  to  xYmerican  republicanism, 
but  ho  farther;  and  now  to  claim  as  peculiar  ground  what 
is  common  is  as  ridiculous  as  it  is  arrogant.  Other  evan- 
gelical churches,  especially  those  that  date  farther  back  than 
the  Baptist  Church,,  and  on  far  better  ground  than  she  occu- 

^:  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  p.  60. 


118  UNFAIRNESS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 


pied,  might  say  the  same  thing  of  their  principles,  and  then 
argue  that  freedom  of  conscience  was  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  their  distinctive  peculiarities ;  and  so  all  might 
contend  for  the  distinguished  honor  which  the  Baptist 
Church  claims,  for  they  all  contributed  to  the  establishment 
of  American  republicanism  and  American  Christianity.  It 
is  not  too  much  to  say  that  by  as  much  as  the  other  churches 
have  excelled  the  Baptist  Church  in  modesty  they  have 
surpassed  her  in  merit  in  competition  for  the  honor  in 
question. 

The  Baptists,  in  the  history  of  their  church  from  its 
origin,  overlook  the  easy  and  gradual  transition  of  a  church 
from  a  state  of  cori-uption  and  error  to  a  state  of  compara- 
tive purity  and  excellence, — a  transition  and  improve- 
ment not  ascribable  legitimately  to  the  practical  influence 
of  the  principles  and  practices  which  she  originally  adopted, 
but  to  the  principles  and  practices  of  pure  and  spiritual 
churches  in  contact  with  her  and  accompanying  her  in  her 
progress  to  fortune  and  fame.  It  is  a  fundamental  fact  in 
the  history  of  the  Christian  era  that  the  progress  of  a  pure 
gospel  improves  man  in  every  department  of  civilization. 
Social  and  civil  governments  and  laws  are  improved  in 
proportion  to  the  practical  development  of  the  truths  of  the 
gospel;  and,  as  a  concomitant  result,  corrupt  and  defective 
sects  of  religion  are  purified  in  character  and  improved  in 
doctrine  and  practice.  Civil  governments  are  either 
improved  or  overturned,  the  old  governments  either  modi- 
fied or  new  governments  set  up  in  their  place  upon  better 
principles;  and  the  same  is  true  of  corrupt  and  defective 
churches.  These  remarks  are  applicable  in  a  striking 
manner  to  the  history  of  the  Baptist  Church.  It  will  be 
found  that  little  by  little  she  has  arisen  from  an  obscure 
and  corrupt  origin,  and  reached  her  present  respectable  and 
noble  position  through  influences  extraneous  to  her  primi- 


] 


UNFAIRNESS   OP   THE    BAPTISTS.  119 


tive  constitution,  though  in  several  respects  her  regene- 
ration is  not  yet  complete.  It  is  a  matter  of  surprise  that 
her  historians  and  writers,  declining  to  award  the  merit  of 
her  improvement  where  it  justly  and  properly  belongs,  have 
confined  the  sources  of  her  improvement  and  enlargement 
within  her  own  limits  ;  while  it  is  matter  of  greater  surprise 
that  she  should  ever  have  presumed  to  ascribe  the  purity, 
excellence,  and  efficiency  of  other  evangelical  churches,  and 
the  existence  and  prosperity  of  our  republican  civil  govern- 
ment, to  the  influence  of  her  peculiar  tenets  and  practices. 
And  it  is  more  surprising  still,  that,  while  from  her  contact 
with  churches  pure  and  sound  in  doctrine  she  has  bor- 
rowed from  them  many  fundamental  truths  of  the  gospel 
and  incorporated  them  in  her  own  creed,  she  should  take 
their  admissions  of  the  soundness  of  those  doctrines  as  con- 
cessions to  the  truth  of  her  ^^peculiarities  •/'  holding  to  those 
churches  the  relation  of  the  borrower  to  the  lender,  and 
yet,  in  opposition  to  all  the  dictates  of  truth  and  justice, 
holding  the  lender  under  obligation  to  the  borrower  !  The 
Baptist  Church  has  not  one  fundamental  truth  or  principle 
of  the  gospel  in  her  creed  or  practice  that  did  not  exist  in 
the  creed  and  practice  of  other  churches  antecedently  to  her 
origin.  It  is  a  reflection  upon  the  intelligence  and  a  pre- 
sumption upon  the  ignorance  of  men  to  assert  or  claim  the 
contrary.  Why  then  appeal  to  admissions  of  this  nature  in 
support  of  Baptist  claims?  The  admissions  support  the 
Baptists  only  so  far  as  they  support  the  churches  that  make 
those  admissions,  and  thus  by  a  sort  of  necessity  carry  the 
Baptist  Church  along  with  them  in  common  with  other 
churches.  In  fact,  this  appeal  to  the  concessions  of  the 
Pedobaptist  churches  is  a  recognition  of  the  purity  and 
orthodoxy  of  the  Pedobaptist  churches, — is  a  -defence  of  the 
Baptist  Church  behind  the  ramparts  of  the  Pedobaptist 
churches, — is  a  retreat  into  the  walls  of  the  Pedobaptist 


120  UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


churches  for  security  and  protection.  Abrogate,  renounce 
what  of  Pedobaptist  orthodoxy  is  contained  in  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  Baptist  Church,  and  what  remains  to  that 
church  but  an  exclusive  mode  of  one  of  the  sacraments  of 
Christianity  and  the  concomitant  restricted  observance  of 
the  other  sacrament  ?  How  long  could  the  Baptist  Church 
exist  in  this  state  of  mutilation?  Let  the  Baptists  give 
back  to  the  Pedobaptist  churches  what  she  has  borrowed  from 
them,  and  that  moment  she  is  bereft  utterly  of  the  means 
of  supporting  her  peculiar  tenets,  exclusive  immersion  and 
close  communion.  Dissolve  the  bonds  of  Pedobaptist  ortho- 
doxy that  hold  the  Baptist  Church  together,  and  her  pecu- 
liarities fall  at  once  of  themselves :  in  that  instant  she  will  be 
rejected  by  an  enlightened  community  and  renounced  by 
all  the  evangelical  churches  in  the  world.  It  is  Pedobaptist 
doctrine,  elemental  in  the  Baptist  Church,  that  is  the  only 
sure  basis  of  her  existence  and  the  only  sure  guarantee  of  her 
perpetuity.     Remove  this,  and  she  falls  to  ruin  in  a  day. 

Another  example  of  the  sophistical  reasoning  of  the  Bap- 
tists is  the  confounding  the  inherent  tendency  of  the  doc- 
trines and  institutions  of  evangelical  pedobaptism  with  the 
adventitious  circumstances  with  which  they  were  formerly 
implicated,  and  from  which  they  have  been  extricated. 
This  popular  and  successful  sophism  is  effectually  exposed 
by  the  consideration  that  the  adventitious  circumstances  are 
ascribable  to  the  fault  of  human  nature,  to  man's  entire 
depravity,  and  not  to  any  inherent  defect  in  the  doctrines 
and  institutions  themselves ;  and  consequently  a  renovation 
of  the  human  heart  is  accompanied  with  the  abrogation  of 
the  adventitious  circumstances  and  the  restoration  of  evan- 
gelical doctrines  and  institutions  to  their  original  simplicity 
and  purity.  Corruptions  and  innovations  originate  in 
motives  inseparable  from  inordinate  self-love,  and  are  fos- 
tered by  worldly  and  political  influences,  as  in  the  develop- 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  121 


ment  of  the  Papacy,  and  in  the  constitution  of  the  great 
church-establishments  of  Europe, — offices,  originally  simple 
and  humble,  gradually  elevated  from  one  grade  and  title  to 
another  still  higher,  till  the  apostolic  office  of  elder  or 
bishop  is  filled  by  a  monarch,  who  claims  the  homage  of  the 
world,  and  institutions,  originally  simple  signs  and  seals  of 
the  covenant  of  salvation,  become  inscrutable  mysteries 
communicating  ex  opere  opcratum  all  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant  to  the  recipient.  The  rise  and  prevalence  of  doc- 
trinal errors  and  corruptions  in  ceremony  are  in  proportion 
to  the  decay  of  intelligent  and  scriptural  piety^  and  resist- 
ance to  the  former  is  in  proportion  to  the  revival  and 
extension  of  the  latter.  The  wonder  is  that  the'combination 
of  the  political  and  superstitious  influences  and  amazing- 
power  of  wealth  and  learning  employed  in  erecting  the 
splendid  structure  of  Papacy  did  not  sweep  a  pure  Chris- 
tianity from  the  face  of  the  earth ;  and  this  it  would  have 
done  if  the  Eible  and  religious  feeling  in  man  had  not  been 
indestructible.  And  now  that  that  religious  feeling  has 
been  roused  and  guided  by  the  light  of  the  Bible  and  the 
Spirit,  and  the  gorgeous  and  meretricious  drapery  thrown 
around  the  offices  and  institutions  of  the  gospel  has  been 
removed  by  the  deft  skill  and  courage  of  holy  men,  to 
ascribe  the  baleful  influences  of  unrcgenerate  and  aspiring 
human  nature  to  the  inherent  tendency  of  those  offices  and 
institutions  is  a  chimera  surpassed  only  by  the  claim  to 
papal  infallibility  and  supremacy.  No;  the  tendency  to 
corruption  and  the  augmentation  of  political  and  eccle- 
siastical power  is  not  inherent  in  evangeliciil  pedobaptism. 
Evangelical  pedobaptism  is  linked  with  the  development 
and  maturity  of  human  destiny.  The  Pedobaptist  Reforma- 
tion of  Luther  has  stamped  upon  human  nature  impres- 
sions which  centuries  of  Pedobaptist  triumphs  have  deep- 
ened, and  which  it  seems,  we  run  no  hazard  in  saying,  will 

11 


122  UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


be  perpetuated  from  age  to  age  in  moulding  the  world's 
character  and  achieving  the  world's  redemption. 

But  what  is  there  in  evangelical  pedobaptism  against 
which  the  Baptist  Vatican  "lightens*'  so  fiercely  and  "thun- 
ders'' so  loudly?  '  In  it  is  no  penance  for  the  neglecter  of 
baptism,  nor  missal  for  the  worshipper  of  the  sacramental 
elements,  nor  use  of  the  confessional,  nor  recognition  of 
human  merits,  nor  prayer  for  the  dead,  nor  mass  for  patients 
in  purgatory,  nor  supplication  to  the  Virgin,  nor  invocation 
of  the  saints,  nor  a  vaticum  for  the  Christian  ^^  in  cxtremisj* 
nor  a  paean  to  celibacy,  nor  an  anthem  to  virginity,  nor  a 
shrine  for  holy  relics,  nor  a  receptacle  for  an  image,  nor  a 
trace  of  idolatry,  nor  a  ceremony  of  worldly  pomp,  nor  a 
service  for  inspiring  superstitious  awe,  nor  a  rite  of  priestly 
policy,  nor  a  precept  or  regulation  of  papal  import  or 
authority;  but,  simple  and  impressive  in  order,  sound  and 
scriptural  in  doctrine,  pure  and  spiritual  in  experience, 
consistent  and  noble  in  character,  energetic  and  efficient  in 
action,  it  has  gone  forth  "  clear  as  the  sun,  fair  as  the  moon, 
and  terrible  as  an  army  with  banners ;''  while  human  society, 
under  its  influence,  on  every  hand,  has  ever  been  tending 
to  a  higher  and  purer  state  of  civilization,  refinement,  and 
religion. 

What  church — to  say  nothing  of  other  evangelical 
churches — has  given  better  evidence  that  He  who  instituted 
the  sacramental  supper  is  with  her  than  the  Methodist 
Church  ?  Like  a  mighty  army  her  sons  have  joyfully 
rushed  forward,  stormed,  and  carried  by  assault  the  citadels 
of  the  enemy  on  every  hand.  It  may  almost  be  said  of 
them,  "  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man 
presseth  unto  it."  What  battles  have  they  not  fought,  what 
dangers  have  they  not  encountered,  what  difficulties  have 
they  not  surmounted,  what  enemies  have  they  not  overcome, 
what  sufferings  have  they  not  endured,  what  labors  have 


UNFAIRNESS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS.  123 


they  not  performed,  what  activity  have  they  uot  displayed, 
what  energy  have  they  not  exerted,  what  proof  of  feaUy  to 
God  and  love  to  man  have  they  not  given  in  a  thousand 
forms?  As  a  living,  impetuous,  irresistible  torrent, 
Methodism  has  swept  away  the  opposition  of  Scribe  and 
Pharisee,  and  her  bold/  vigorous,  and  undaunted  leaders 
have  led  her  forward  to  spiritual  victory.  God  has  sanc- 
tioned the  holy  invasion ;  and  surely  he  gives  the  invaders 
a  title  to  the  kingdom  won,  and  seals  with  his  approbation 
every  repetition  of  their  sacramental  oath  at  his  table.  No 
church  since  the  days  of  the  apostles  has  ever  exercised 
more  charity  toward  other  Christian  cotomunities  than  the 
Methodist  Church  does  toward  those  who  differ  from  her  in 
opinion  and  church-government.  No  church  has  been  more 
independent  of  aid  from  other  churches  in  its  labors  and 
success.  No  church  has  been  gathered  so  entirely  from  the 
world  without  robbing  other  church-es.  No  church  has 
contributed  more  to  the  prosperity  of  other  churches.  No 
church  since  apostolic  times  has  flourished  so  rapidly  and 
done  so  much  good  in  so  short  a  time  as  the  Methodist 
Church  has  done.  We  might  enlarge,  and  heaven  and 
earth  would  respond.  We  only  add,  it  would  be  no  dese- 
cration of  the  Lord's  table,  nor  dishonor  to  the  Baptists,  for 
them  to  engage  with  the  Methodists  or  any  other  Christians 
in  sacramental  communion. 

Professor  Curtis  observes,  "This  controversy  has  of  late 
years  been  conducted  in  a  far  more  Christian  spirit,  and  the 
points  of  difference  have  been  greatly  narrowed  down."* 
What  points  of  difference  ?  The  points  of  difference  referred 
to  are  the  abuses  and  absurdities  which  the  Baptists  formerly 
connected  with  baptism,  and  which,  having  been  refuted  by 
Pedobaptist  facts  and  arguments,  they  have  abandoned,  so 

*■  Progress  of  Baptist  Princiijlos,  p.  16. 


124  UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


that  now  the  points  of  difference  are  exclusive  immersion 
and  close  communion,  which  are  as  tenaciously  maintained 
and  as  firmly  opposed  by  the  parties  as  ever.  But,  the 
points  of  difference  being  less  now  than  formerly,  there  is 
good  reason  wliy  the  parties  should  bo  more  friendly  now  than 
formerly.  The  prejudices  of  the  Baptists  have  ^*  evapor- 
ated'^ with  their  errors. 

"Other  churches,  of  late,"  says  another  Baptist  writer, 
"have  become  more  friendly  toward  the  Baptists."  This 
is  true;  and  the  reason  asserted  for  this  is  that  other 
churches  are  yielding  gradually  to  the  influence  and 
approximating  to  the  tenets  and  practices  of  the  Baptist 
Church.  But  the  -reverse  is  the  reason  of  the  friendly 
bearing  of  evangelical  churche.s  toward  the  Baptist  Church. 
The  gradual  approximation  of  the  Baptist  Church  to  the 
doctrines  and  practices  of  the  evangelical  churches  is  the 
true  explanation  of  this  gratifying  change.  The  Baptist 
Church  from  its  origin  has  gradually  and  by  almost  insen- 
sible degrees  taken  up  into  its  creed  so  much  of  the  doctrine 
and  adopted  so  much  of  the  practice  of  other  churches,  and 
thus  has  so  narrowed  down  the  causes  of  difference  and 
repulsion  between  her  and  other  churches,  that  it  is  but 
a  natural  and  necessary  consequence  that  they  should  be 
more  friendly  toward  her  now  than  formerly.  In  this  case 
they  could  not  hold  her  at  a  distance,  or  treat  her  with 
indifference,  without  condemning  what  she  had  borrowed 
from  themselves  and  retained  and  practised  themselves; 
and  with  ever}^  advance  of  the  Baptist  Church  to  the  sound 
and  evangelical  views  of  other  churches  will  be  their  recog- 
nition of  her  claims  to  their  friendship,  confidence,  and 
regards.  For  example : — In  England,  in  1535,  (to  go  no 
further  back,  and  not  to  mention  the  heresies  maintained 
by  many  if  not  all  the  sects  from  which  the  Baptists  claim 
descent,)    they  denied    that  "Christ  was    both   God    and 


UNFAIRI^ESS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS.  125 


man:"*  how  then  could  evangelical  churches  be  friendly 
toward  them  as  sound  in  the  faith  until  they  renounced  this 
heresy  and  adopted  the  orthodox  view  of  Christ, — which  they 
have  since  done  ?  Again  :  no  further  back  than  the  period 
in  which  Wall  wrote  (1705)  many  of  the  Baptists  "  believed 
none  to  be  Christians  but  themselves,  because  they  believed 
none  to  be  baptized  but  themselves;  and  many  of  them  were 
so  peremptory  in  this,  that  if  they  were  in  the  chamber 
of  a  sick  man,  and  any  Pedobaptist,  minister  or  other, 
came  to  pray  with  him,  they  went  out  of  the  room ;  and,  if 
they  were  invited  to  the  funeral  of  any  Pedobaptist,  they 
went  to  the  house  and  accompanied  the  corpse  with  the  rest 
of  the  people  to  the  church-door;  but  there  they  retreated: 
they  called  it  the  steeple-house '''\  But  a  very  great  change 
has  come  to  pass  since  then,  and  the  Baptists  now  engage 
with  other  churches  in  every  particular  of  Christian  fellow- 
ship but  sacramental  communion ;  so  that  it  is  not  surprising 
that  other  churches  should  be  more  friendly  toward  them 
than  formerly. 

The  Baptists — for  example.  Dr.  Howell  and  Mr.  Reming- 
ton— often  attempt  to  prove  close  communion  upon  other 
churches.  What  then  ?  In  this  either  the  Pedobaptists 
are  right  or  they  are  wrong.  If  they  are  wrong,  then  a 
similar  practice  among  the  Baptists  is  not  right.  If  they 
are  right,  then  the  Baptists  have  no  right  to  complaim 
But  the  Pedobaptists  do  not  practise  restricted  communion, 
as  all  the  world  knows.  Therefore  the  Baptists  cannot 
appeal  to  the  Pedobaptists  for  the  propriety  of  their  prac- 
tice. This  were  a  sufficient  answer  to  much  that  the  Bap- 
tists have  written  in  vindication  of  close  communion.  But 
Mr.  Whitney,  a  Baptist,  in  his  work  on  Open  Communion, 
shall  answer  this  side-issue.     '^  The  question  is  not  whether 

^■'  Wall,  vol.  ii.  p.  .310.  f  Ibid.  p.  320. 

U* 


12G  UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS. 


we  are  as  free  or  not  in  our  coinmuiiion  as  others  are.  Some, 
iudeed,  like  Mr.  Remington,  seem  to  tliink  that  this  is  the 
whole  question.  Even  if  it  were  true  that  Baptists  were 
more  free  and  liberal  in  their  administrations  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  than  other  denominations, — which,  however,  is 
about  as  capable  of  being  proved  as  that  a  barred  and 
halted  house  is  easier  of  access  than  one  ivith  ojyen  doors 
whose  inmates  stand  to  icelcome  you  in, — what  would  this 
have  to  do  with  justifying  the  practice  of  close  communion  '/ 
The  question  is,  Are  we  as  free  as  God's  word  and  the 
genius  of  the  ennobling  religion  of  Christ  require  us  to  be  ? 
It  is  a  weak  cause  indeed  that  is  sustained  by  such  a  course, 
and  a  bad  one  alone  that  needs  it.  And  yet  this  is  the 
mode  in  which  hundreds  are  made  confirmed  restricted- 
communionists.  When  all  other  arguments  fail,  this,  in 
nine  cases  out  of  ten,  is  sure  to  be  plied,  if  not  to  eflfect  the 
end  desired."*  We  agree  with  Mr.  Whitney,  that,  where 
a  man's  reasoning  is  bad,  ordinarily  his  motive  is  not 
good. 

We  know  no  work,  except  Dr.  Howell's  treatise  on 
''  Terms  of  Sacramental  Communion"  and  certain  Romish 
publications,  that  contains  crowded  in  it  more  pious  frauds 
of  the  character  under  consideration  than  Mr.  Remington's 
little  pamphlet  on  Communion.  It  is  a  singular  little  pam- 
phlet,— singular  in  its  authorship  :  Mr.  Remington  was  for 
''twenty-five  years  a  member,"  and  for  ''nearly  twenty 
years"  a  minister,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
during  that  time  a  member  of  three  annual  Conferences, 
and  at  last  settled  in  tiie  Baptist  Church.  Singular  in  its 
popularity:  it  has  already  (1852)  reached  the  twenty-second 
thousand.  And  singular  in  its  puerile  sophisms  :  and  this 
may  explain  its  popularity.     Almost  every  page  is  replete 


Whitney  on  Open  Connminion,  pp.  3S,  ,39. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAFTISTS.  1: 


witii  sophisms.  For  example  : — To  refute  the  charge  that 
the  "  Baptists  rob  the  children  of  God  of  their  privilege," 
he  inquires,  ^^  How  often  do  the  different  denominations  of 
Pedobaptists  commune  with  each  other?"  and  replies  that 
"for  more  than  twenty-five  years  he  was  a  member  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  never  for  once  during  all 
that  time  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  communing  with  any 
other  denomination;"  and  that  "a  few  weeks  ago,  in  con- 
versation with  a  preacher  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,"  the  preacher  acknowledged  to  him  that  for 
"  twelve  years  he  had  not  communed  once  with  other 
denominations."*  And  why  not?'  Because  they  were 
iJcnied  the  privilege  of  communing  with  other  churches? 
No;  but  because  they  voluntarily  declined  the  privilege. 
The  fault,  then,  was  not  with  ^^  other  denominations,"  but 
with  tliemselves.  But  the  Baptists  deny  others  this  privi- 
lege ',  and  therefore  the  fault  is  with  the  Baptists.  Again  : 
he  repeats  a  dialogue  he  had  while  a  Methodist  preacher 
with  a  "  young  convert"  who  applied  to  him  for  baptism 
by  "  immersion,"  and  whom  he  refused  to  immerse  because 
she  beHeved  immersion  was  the  only  valid  mode,  saying  to 
her,  '^' Well,  madam,  if  this  is  your  opinion  I  cannot  baptize 
you,  because  you  are  not  a  Methodist,  but  a  Baptist;"  and 
so  she  ''goes  to  the  Baptists. "f  We  reply  that  he  acted 
unjustly  both  to  the  "young  convert"  and  the  Methodist 
Church,  for  the  Methodist  Church  makes  no  such  requi" 
sition  of  candidates  for  private  membership  in  her  fold. J 


*  Remington  on  Communion,  pp.  1,3,  14.  f  Ibid.  pp.  19,  21. 

X  The  Methodists  do  not  believe  immersion  either  essential  to  baptism 
or  a  bar  to  communion.  It  is  a  suflBcient  refutation  to  this  sophism  to 
say  that  the  Methodists  would  not  repel  pious  BajJtists  themselves  from 
the  Lord's  table,  though  they  believe,  as  Mr.  Remington's  "young 
convert"  did,  in  exclusive  immersion.  Yea,  the  Baptist  Remington 
himself  woubl  not  be  excluded  ;  and  I  hp,«itate  not  to  express  the  lielief 


128  UNFAIRNESS   OP   THE   BAPTISTS. 


About  the  time  of  this  dialogue  it  is  presumable  Mr. 
Remington  was  not  far  from  the  ^^  liquid  grave"  himself. 

Again :  he  cites  instances  of  persecution  and  intolerance 
by  the  Pedobaptists  "in  New  England  in  1636, 1639, 1643, 
1644,  1651,  1680,  and  1770,''*  from  which  he  argues  the 
existence  of  the  spirit  of  persecution  and  intolerance  in 
Pedobaptist  churches  in  America  in  the  present  day.  But 
look  at  these  dates.  .  They  are  all  before  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  civil  and  religious,  which  occurred  in  1776, 
when  America  threw  off  the  yoke  of  English  control.  His 
charge,  then,  lies  against  English  persecution  and  intole- 
rance, and  not  the  Pedobaptist  churches  of  the  United  States. 
But  his  humiliating  inference  from  English  persecution  and 
intolerance,  above  cited,  is  most  appropriate  to  the  Baptist 
Church  from  its  origin  to  the  present  time  : — "  Any  system 
of  religion,  therefore,  which  in  its  practical  influence  would 
lead '  us  to  persecute  those  who  are  of  a  different  opinion 
with  ourselves,  or  would  preclude  Christian  fellowship  with 
those  who  are  7'ight  in  the  fundamentals  of  religion,  and 
have  j)C(ssed  from  death  unto  life  and  hecome  the  children 
of  God  hy  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  just  because  they  differ 
from  us  in  some  things  not  dhsolutehj  necessary  to  salvation, 
must  he  lorong,  radically  wrong.'^-f  Then  the  Baptist 
"system"  of  religion  is  "wrong,  radically  wrong,"  for  it 
does  "preclude  Christian  fellowship"  with  pious  Pedobaptists 
who  differ  from  the  Baptists  in  nothing  "  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  salvation," — the  Baptists  themselves  being  judges, 
and  Mr.  Remington  in  particular.  "  AYe  rejoice  to  believe,'^ 
says  he,  "  that  there  are  genuine  Christians  in  all  the  evan- 

that  many  of  his  old  Methodist  brethren  in  the  ministry  and  member- 
ehip  would  gladly  meet  with  him  in  the  old  familiar  and  sacred  service 
at  the  Lord's  table,  in  the  Methodist  Church,  so  long  as  he  maintains  a 
Christian  integrity  in  the  Baptist  ministry. 

*  Remington  on  Communion,  pp.  2?>,  24.  f  Ibid,  p.  25. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE   BAPTISTS.  129 


gelical  churcheS;  for  whom  we  not  only  entertain  the  highest 
respect  but  sincere  Christian  affection  and  fellowship.""^ 
How  just  is  the  claim  to  the  meed  of  praise  in  the  following 
sentence  the  reader  can  judge  : — "  One  thing  which  is 
worthy  of  praise  must  be  allowed  us,  [Baptists,]  and  that  is 

CONSISTENCY/'f 

Again  : — "Let  the  Pedobaptist  churches  enforce  their 
respective  disciplines,  and  require  their  members  to  invari- 
ably sanction  infant  baptism,  and  there  would  be  such  a  fire 
kindled  among  them  that  nothing  but  immersion  would 
quench  it.  They  would  drive  their  members  off  to  Baptist 
churches  by  hundreds,  if  not  by  thousands. "|  Here  is 
another  mistake  of  the  Methodist  Bemington.  The  Method- 
ist DiscipHne  makes  no  such  requisition  under  the  sanction 
of  exclusion.  It  is  obvious  Mr.  Bemington  was  imperfectly 
acquainted  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Methodist  Dis- 
cipline, at  least  in  this  particular.  Besides,  icater  is  a  novel 
means  to  ^^  quench"  the  fires  of  religious  contention,  and  by 
this  time  the  Baptists  must  have  become  expert  in  its  use. 

Again : — "  Again,  I  know  of  many  ministers  of  the  gospel 
who,  notwithstanding  the  avowed  principles  of  the  Pedo- 
baptist churches  that  baptism  is  an  essential  prerequisite  to 
the  communion,  will  immerse  such  as  have  been  sprinkled 
in  infancy,  and  even  adult  years,  rather  than  let  them  go  to 
the  Baptists.  Is  this  consistent?"!  This  inconsistency  is 
chargeable  upon  the  individual  ministers  that  do  it;  but 
the  church  unqualifiedly  disapprobates  the  abuse,  as  Mr. 
RemijDgton  himself  acknowledges  : — "  I  acknowledge  that 
this  is  not  in  accordance  with  established  usage  in  Pedo- 
baptist churches  ;"||  and  again: — " To  determine  what  are 
the  doctrines  or  discipline  of  any  church,  -w*  must  not 


*  Remington  on  Communion,  p.  5.  f  Ibid.  p.  27. 

+  Ibid.  p.  28.  §  Ibid.  p.  28.  II  Ibid.  p.  29. 


130  UNFAIRiNESS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS. 


rely  upon  the  mere  statements  or  practice  of  isolated  indi- 
viduah."^ 

Again  :  lie  charges  close  communion  upon  other  churches, 
for  example : — "  With  close-communion  laws,  I  ask,  how  can 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  be  open-communion  ?"■}" 
But  private  members  in  the  Methodist  Church  do  commune 
with  the  Episcopalians;  and  this  Mr.  Remington  himself 
acknowledges  : — "  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  do  not 
deem  it  wrong  to  go  and  eat  and  drink  with  them,  [Episco- 
palians,] though  they  will  never  return  the  courtesy.'"J 
How  then  can  the  Episcopalians  be  "close-communion''? 
Besides,  the  Episcopalians,  as  is  well  known,  do  often 
*' return  the  courtesy"  in  the  Southern  country,  however 
they  may  decline  to  do  it  in  Mr.  Eemington's  neighbor- 
hood. 

Again  :  he  introduces  an  applicant  for  communion  in  the 
Methodist  Churchy  and  represents  him  as  rejected  because 
he  does  not  "  believe,  preach,  and  dress  Just  like  the 
Ilethodists."^     Mr.  Bemington  is  fanciful. 

Again  :  he  forms  a  sophism  from  the  Methodistic  rule 
respecting  ''class-meetiugs,"||  which  is  refuted  by  the  fact 
that  the  Methodists  do  admit  to  communion  members  of 
other  churches  who  have  not  the  institution  of  class- 
meetings. 

We  shall  close  our  notice  of  Mr.  Bemington  with  a  con- 
cession that  refutes  his  whole  treatise  : — "  Pedobaptists  who 
are  united  in  a  congregation  may  be  regarded  as  a  church, 
and  a  Christian  church,  though  they  have  never  been  bap- 
tized according  to  Christ's  example  and  command;  but  they 
cannot  be  fellowshipped  as  a  regular  gospel  church.  We 
may  extend^to  them  the  hand  of  Christian  fellowship,  but 


*  Remington  on  Communion,  p.  30.  f  Ibid.  p.  46. 

X  Ibid.  p.  47.  2  Ibid.  p.  49.  f]  Ibid.  pp.  60-53. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS.  131 


not  the  hand  of  c-7mrcA-fellowship."*  Then  <'  a  congre- 
gation" may  be  '^  a  Christian  church"  and  not  '^  a  Christian 
church"  at  the  same  time, — which  is  absurd.  The  moment 
it  is  admitted  that  we  are  Christian  churches,  it  follows  that 
we  are  founded  upon  the  gospel.  Moreover,  a  '^Christian 
church"  is  entitled  to  " c/mrcA-fellowship,"  or  it, is  not  a 
Christian  church.  The  Baptists,  then,  must  deny  that  we  are 
Christian  churches,  or  extend  to  us  ^'  the  hand  of  church- 
fellowship."  But  Mr.  Remington  admits  that  we  are 
Christian  churches:  therefore  he  and  his  brethren  should 
extend  to  us  "  the  hand  of  c/iwrcA-fellowship." 

Mr.  Remington's  little  work  has  nothing  new  in  it  except 
his  sophisms  against  the  Methodists;  and  from  twenty-five 
years'  association  with  them  he  learned  enough  of  them  to 
misrepresent  them ;  and  we  would  have  given  his  popular 
pamphlet  but  little  notice  did  we  not  believe  that  its  popu- 
larity depended  upon  its  sophisms  and  misrepresentations. 

And  now  what  is  the  amount  of  the  concessions  contained 
in  preceding  chapters  and  of  the  pious  frauds  exposed  in 
this  chapter?  Cold  and  inanimate  are  the  concessions, 
— though  they  are  sufficient  to  establish  all  the  verities 
essential  to  pious  and  evangelical  pedobaptism.  They  are 
made  in  a  frigid  apathy.  The  imagination  of  Baptist 
writers  seems  dead  to  the  moral  dignity  and  efficiency  of 
the  Pedobaptists,  and  admiration  is  expressed  with  reluc- 
tance, reservations,  and  exceptions.  Their  blameless  purity 
and  moral  triumphs  are  enveloped  in  a  mass  of  ecclesiastical 
fictions  and  corruptions,  and  their  majesty  and  beauty  dis- 
paraged or  neutralized  by  expressions  prophetic  of  dark  and 
degenerate  periods.  Fair  room  is  allowed  for  the  exhibition 
of  Baptist  martyrs  to  the  truth;  but  other  witnesses,  as 
genuine  and  nobler  in  character,  are  left  to  repose  in  the 

*  Remington  on  Communion,  p.  71. 


132  UNFAIRNESS    OP    THE    BAPTISTS. 


silence  and  obscurity  of  the  past.     This  want  of  candor 
evinces  the  want  of  charity  and  the  presence  of  an  undue 
love  of  party;  or  it  may  be  that  the  want  of  charity  explains 
the   absence   of   candor.      The    estimate  of   an   argument 
depends  in  a  very  great  degree  upon  the  habits  and  feelings 
of  the  reader;  and  hence^  when  prejudices  are  already  exist- 
ing in  favor  of  one  party  and  a  friendly  disposition  indulged 
toward  the  other  party  in  controversy,  it  is  almost  impossible 
to  draw  the  line  between  unfamiess  and  intentional  mis- 
representation; and  the  path  of  the  reader  is  indeed  perilous 
when  he  is  unable  to  detect  in  his  author  unfairness  on  the 
one  hand  and  a  secret  and  deliberate  violation  of  truth  and 
justice  on  the  other.     A  deliberate  suppression  of  facts 
material  to  a  just  and  rational  conclusion  evinces  not  only 
the  spirit  of  bigotry  in  its"  most  artful  attire,  but  of  the 
most   insidious    hostility  to   the   misrepresented   sects    of 
Christianity.     Whether  disguised  or  not,  the  real  issue  is 
involved  in  shadow,  and  doubt  and  suspicion  are  cast  back 
upon  the  primitive  history  and  present  existence  of  other 
evangelical  denominations.     It  is  a  wily  manoeuvre  to  tar- 
nish their  native   purity  and  destroy  their  claims  to  con- 
fidence and  support.     It  is  a  dexterous  attempt  to  confound 
the  limits  of  sophism  with  sober  reasoning,  and  to  palm 
upon  the  public  a  pious  fraud  in  the  place  of  unquestionable 
merit  and  plain  truth.     It  is  a  method  of  debate  which 
may  be  crowned  with  a  limited  success,  but  which  must  be 
ultimately  abandoned  with  shame  and    defeat.      It  is  an 
assumption  prodigally  ornamented  with  imposing  quotations 
from    Pedobaptist   authors,    transmuted    into    concessions, 
which,  when  interpreted  in  their  proper  connection,  turn 
out   to  be  invincible  arguments  against   the  assumption, 
leaving  it  destitute  of  all  reason   and  moral  dignity,  and 
convicting  its  supporters  of  the  affectation  of  severe  impar- 
tiality.    Men  of  this  class  seem  to  be  governed  by  the 


UNFAIRNESS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS.  133 


influence  of  inextricable  bias ;  and  their  only  reward  can  be 
a  ti'ansitory  triumj)li; — such  only  as  a  narrow  sectarianism 
and  unholy  ambition  can  achieve.  The  want  of  candor  on 
any  subject  is  humiliating ;  but  in  a  matter  of  such  serious 
concern  as  that  before  us  it  deserves  the  severest  repre- 
hension ;  and  this  will  be  timely  administered,  since  ordi- 
narily dissembled  piety  is  corrective  of  its  insinuating 
sophisms  and  too  superficial  to  prevent  the  exposure  of  its 
deep-laid  fraud.  The  mildest  judgment  we  can  express  of 
this  mode  of  upholding  a  cause  is  that  it  is  the  sport  of 
sectarian  caprice,  the  fruitless  conjecture  of  prejudice,  and 
the  pure  invention  of  the  advocates  of  favorite  opinions. 
That  testimonies  so  explicitly  and  harmoniously  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  peculiarities  of  the  Baptist  Church  should  ever 
have  been  employed  in  support  of  those  peculiarities  is  one 
of  the  boldest  and  most  desperate  adventures  of  contro- 
versialists upon  record  :  I  had  almost  said  that  the  adven- 
ture itself  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  Baptist  Church. 
Never  had  the  philosophical  remark  respecting  a  certain 
class  of  writers,  who  ''know  a  little,  presume  a  great  deaf, 
and  so  jump  to  a  conclusion,'^  a  more  perfect  illustration 
than  in  this  case.  All  that  can  be  truly  said  of  th^  unfair- 
ness of  the  Baptists  is,  that  in  their  positions  the  true  and 
the  false  are  adroitly  intermingled ;  and,  in  extricating  the 
former  from  the  latter,  the  positions  are  found  to  contain 
inevitable  self-contradictions  that  are  utterly  fatal  to  them. 
But  it  is  time  to  dismiss  from  the  attention  of  the  reader 
the  unpleasant  topic  of  this  chapter ;  and  this  we  shall  do 
with  a  single  general  remark.  Let  the  reader,  who  has 
neither  the  leisure  nor  the  means  to  consult  the  Pedobaptist 
authorities  adduced  by  Baptists  in  proof  of  exclusive  im- 
mersion and  close  communion,  take  it  for  granted,  once  for 
all,  that  a  pious  fraud  lurks  in  every  attempt.  No  plainer  case 
is  conceivable,  than  that  if  conscientious  Pedobaptists  (and 

12 


134  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION 


Baptists  admit  that  the  authorities  they  quote  are  conscien- 
tious) maintained  Baptist  principles  thej  would  have  been 
Baptists.  In  every  case  of  quotation  from  Pedobaptist 
authorities  I  have  referred  to  the  original  authority,  when- 
ever accessible  to  me,  and  found,  without  an  exception, 
that  the  Baptists  are  guilty  of  the  most  manifest  injus- 
tice, distortion,  and  perversion  in  the  citation  or  quotation. 
There  is  nothing  like  this  unfairness  on  record  except  the 
pious  frauds  and  sophisms  in  Bomanism  and  Puseyism : 
indeed,  though  not  so  learned  or  so  skilful  as  the  latter,  the 
Baptists  have  been  bolder  and  more  successful  in  the  use 
of  this  dishonorable  method, — both  exhibiting  irretrievably 
the  inherent  weakness  of  i\iQ\v  peculiar  tenets  and  practices. 


CHAPTEB  IX. 

-       RESTRICTED    COMMUNION    A    MODERN    INVENTION. 

The  ground  taken  by  the  Baptists,  which  they  regard  as 
tbe  invulnerable  and  inaccessible  rampart  of  their  peculiar 
claims,  is  that  "their  church  is  distinguished  by  two  promi- 
nent traits :  that  she  immerses  exclusively  in  baptism,  and 
admits  to  the  ordinance  none  but  believers.^'*  This  position  is 
taken  in  all  their  writings,  and  is  the  beginning,  continuation, 
and  end  of  all  their  argumentation.  Adhering  with  inflexible 
tenacity  to  this  fundamental  ground  on  which  all  their  hopes 
are  based  and  built,  they  institute  the  inquiry  "whether 
the  church  at  present  known  as  Baptist  has  existed  in  all 
ages  since  the  days  of  Christ,"f  and  endeavor  to  trace  back 
a  line  of  successive  sects  to  the  days  of  the  apostles  as  em- 

*  Howell  on  Terms  of  Communioo,  p,  251.  f  Ibid.  p.  251. 


A    MODERN    INVENTION.  135 


bracing  Baptist  principles  and  adopting  Baptist  practices, 
affirming  that  "in  more  modern  times  the  Baptists  were 
known  in  Italy  as  the  followers  of  Gundulphus, — in  France 
under  the  name  of  Berengarians, — of  Paterines  in  the 
Duchy  of  Milan, — of  the  Petrobrussians  and  Henricians  in 
Languedoc  and  Provence, — and  of  the  followers  in  Brescia 
of  Arnold/'*  Exclusive  immersion  to  none  hut  believers  is 
their  rock ;  and  whatever  sect  they  find  in  their  researches 
occupying  this  rock  they  claim  as  a  Baptist  sect,  icliatever 
other  opinions  ivere  embraced  by  that  sect.  And  so  they 
conclude  that  "the  Baptists  are  not  Protestants,  nor  Dis- 
senters, Lutherans,  Calvinists,  Arminians,  nor  Reformers, 
but  what  we  have  been  in  all  ages, — the  Church  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. ''f 

We  shall  take  up  the  principal  of  these  sects  in  order, 
and  examine  briefly  but  sufficiently  into  their  opinions  and 
practices  respectively,  and  then  compare  them  with  the 
doctrines  and  practices  of  the  present  Baptist  Church,  to 
see  wherein  they  differ  and  wherein  they  are  identical, 
showing  that  the  differences  are  so  great  that  what  of  iden- 
tity remains  is  insufficient  to  justify  the  belief  that  they 
were  what  are  now  called  Baptists.  And  in  our  investiga- 
tion we  shall  find  that  restricted  communion,  as  it  is  prac- 
tised by  the  Baptists,  is  of  more  recent  origin  than  their 
opposition  to  infant  baptism. 

1.  Let  us  run  our  eye  along  the  chain  of  opposition  to 
infant  baptism  from  its  origin,  and  see  if  we  can  find  the 
doctl'ine  of  close  communion  anywhere  in  its  whole  course. 
Opposition  to  infant  baptism  originated  with  Feter  de  Bruis, 
in  the  twelfth  century,  who  publicly  preached  that  infants 
ought  not  to  be  baptized,  because  they  cannot  believe,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  saved.  Next  arose  the  Anabaptists,  in  the 

*  Howell  on  Terras  of  Communion,  p.  257.  f  Ibid.  p.  251. 


136  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION 


early  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  of  these,  Benedict,  the 
famous  Baptist  historian,  says,  ''Under  this  head — the  Ger- 
man Anabaptists  or  Mennonites — I  shall  include  the  whole 
family  of  this  people  as  described  by  Mosheim,  who  will 
be  my  principal  guide  in  their  history  from  the  remote 
depths  of  antiquity/'*  And  thus  he  quotes  Mosheim  : — 
"  The  true  origin  of  that  sect  which  acquired  the  name  of 
Anabaptists  by  administering  the  rite  of  baptism  to  those 
who  came  over  to  their  communion,  and  derived  that  of 
Mennonites  from  the  famous  man  to  whom  they  owe  the 
greatest  part  of  their  present  felicity,  is  hid  in  the  remote 
depth  of  antiquity,  and  is  of  consequence  extremely  difficult 
to  be  ascertained.  This  uncertainty  will  not  appear  sur- 
prising when  it  is  considered  that  this  sect  started  up  all 
of  a  sudden  in  several  countries  at  the  same  time,  &c. 
Their  progress  was  rapid ;  for  in  a  short  space  of  time  their 
discourses,  visions,  and  predictions  excited  commotions  in 
a  great  part  of  Europe,  and  drew  into  their  communion  a 
prodigious  multitude,  whose  ignorcmce  rendered  them  easy 
victims  to  the  illusions  of  enthusiasm.  Some  of  them 
maintained,  among  others,  the  following  points  of  doctrine: 
that  baptism  of  infants  was  an  invention  of  the  devil ;  that 
every  Christian  was  invested  with  the  power  to  preach  the 
gospel,  and  consequently  that  the  church  stood  in  no  need 
of  ministers  and  pastors;  that  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
civil  magistrates  were  absolutely  useless ;  and  that  God  still 
continued  to  reveal  his  will  to  chosen  persons  by  dreams 
and  visions/'f  Such  were  the  early  opposers  of  infant 
baptism,  and  fathers  of  the  Baptist  Church  !  Respecting 
Menno,  the  founder  of  the  Mennonites,  Mosheim,  Bene- 
dict's guide,  says,  ''he  expressed  his  ahhorrence  of  the 
licentious  tenets  which  several  Anabaptists  held  in  relation 

*  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists,  p.  44.  f  Il)i(l.  pp.  45,  46. 


A   MODERN    INVENTION.  137 


to  the  baptism  of  in/ants,  tlie  millennium,  &e. :  he  explained 
and  modified  them  in  such  a  manner  as  made  them  re- 
semble the  religious  tenets  which  were  universally  received 
in  the  Protestant  churches."'^ 

Some  Baptist  writers  claim  descent  for  the  'Baptist 
Church  from  the  Waldenses,  a  body  of  Christians  inhabiting 
the  valleys  of  the  Alps  and  brought  to  light  in  the  twelfth 
century.  They  were  generally  a  pious  and  exemplary 
people, — advocated  many  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Keforma- 
tion,  and  opposed  the  false  pretensions  and  superstitious 
additions  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  But  they  did  not  oj^pose 
infant  baptism.-\  When  certain  Bomish  priests  accused 
them  of  refusing  baptism  to  their  children,  they  denied  the 
charge,  but  acknowledged  that  in  certain  instances  they  had 
delayed  baptism  because  their  own  pastors  or  barbs  were 
abroad  in  other  parts  of  the  work  of  the  church,  and  that 
hereby  the  baptism  of  their  children  was  often  delayed  longer 
than  they  desired. J  Wall  gives  the  following  account : — 
"  The  present  Waldenses,  or  Vaudois,  in  Piedmont,  who  are 
the  posterity  of  those  of  old,  do  practise  infant  baptism  ; 
and  they  were  also  found  in  the  practice  of  it  when  the 
Protestants  of  Luther's  reformation  sent  to  know  their  state 
and  doctrine  and  to  confer  with  them;  and  they  themselves 
do  say  that  their  fathers  never  practised  otherwise.  And 
they  give  proof  of  it  from  an  old  book  of  theirs,  called  the 
Spiritual  Almanack,  where  infant  baptism  is  owned. ^'§  In 
the  17th  article  of  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice  adopted  by 
all  the  Waldenses  assembled  at  Angrogne,  September  12, 
1535,  they  state  their  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  as  follows : — 
''Art.  XVill.  As  to  the  sacraments,  it  has  been  determined 
by  the  Holy  Scriptures  that  we  have  but  two  sacramental 


*  Mosheim,  vol.  ii.  cent.  16,  part  ii.  c.  3.         f  "Wall,  vol.  ii.  p.  301. 

X  Perrin's  History  of  the  Waldenses.  §  "Wall,  vol.  ii.  p.  240. 

12* 


138  RESTRICTED   COMMUNION 


signs  or  symbols,  which  Jesus  Christ  has  left  to  us :  the 
one  is  baptism,  the  other  the  eucharist  or  Lord's  Supper, 
wliich  we  receive  to  demonstrate  our  perseverance  in  the 
faith,  according  to  the  promise  we  made  in  our  baptism  in 
our  infancy."  Professor  Curtis  admits  that  the  Waldenses 
practised  infant  baptism.  *^To  what  extent  they  [the 
Waldenses]  rejected  infant  baptism  has  long  been  a  matter 
of  dispute.  That  many  of  them  did  so  is  beyond  question. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  that  some  of  the  sects  who  went 
under  this  general  name  continued  to  practise  it,  loe  do  not 
donht."  (Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  p.  26.)  There  is 
other  testimony,  which  we  omit,  to  notice  but  one  fact  more. 
''Soon  after  the  opening  of  the  Keformation  by  Luther, 
they  sought  intercourse  with  the  Keformed  churches  of 
Geneva  and  France,  held  communion  with  them,  and 
appeared  eager  to  testify  their  respect  and  affection  for 
them  as  brethren  in  the  Lord, — the  churches  of  Geneva  and 
France  at  this  time  being  in  the  habitual  use  of  infant 
baptism.  This  single  fact  is  snfiricnt  to  prove  thai  the 
Waldenses  were  Pedohaptists."'^ 

The  descent  of  the  Baptist  Church  is  sometimes  traced 
from  the  Cathari  of  Germany,  the  Paterincs  in  Italy,  and  the 
Paulicians  in  Greece.  But  the  following  are  well-authenti- 
cated facts  in  church-history  : — '•  All  these  sects  were  semi- 
manicheans.  The  Paulicians  denied  that  this  inferior  and 
visible  world  is  the  production  of  the  Supreme  Being,  and 
distinguish  between  the  Creator  of  the  world  and  of  the 
human  body  from  the  Most  High  who  dwells  in  heaven ; 
and  some  have  been  led  to  conceive  that  they  were  a  branch 
of  the  Gnostics  rather  than  of  the  Manichees  :  they  refused 
to  celebrate  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  they 
rejected  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  two  epis- 

"'•■  Dr.  Samuel  Miller  on  Baptism. 


A    MODERN    INVENTION.  139 


ties  of  St.  Peter;  instead  of  confessing  the  human  nature 
and  substantial  sufferings  of  Christ,  they  amused  their  fancy 
with  a  celestial  body  and  with  a  fantastic  crucifixion  that 
eluded  the  impotent  malice  of  the  Jews ;  they  believe  in 
the  eternity  of  matter,"*  &c.  However  heretical  they  were, 
no  evidence  of  a  satisfactory  nature  has  ever  been  adduced 
that  they  opposed  infant  baptism. 

The  Baptists  pretend  to  trace  their  descent  from  the 
Donatlsts,  a  schismatic  sect  which  arose  in  the  year  311 
and  derives  its  name  from  Donatus,  its  founder.  They 
made  no  alteration  in  ecclesiastical  government,  none  in 
doctrine,  and  continued  the  practice  of  infant  hnp)ti!>in  as 
thcT/ had  done  before  their  separation.  ^' The  doctrine  of 
the  Donatists  was  conformable  to  that  of  the  church,  as 
even  their  adversaries  confess. '^f  "  Among  all  the  reasons 
that  the  Donatists  gave  why  the  baptism  of  the  Catholics 
was  null,  there  is  none  that  lays  any  blame  on  their  giving 
it  in  infancy.  But,  on  the  contrary,  St.  Austin  does  often 
make  use  of  the  instance  of  infant  baptism,  as  granted  hy 
them,  to  overthrow  some  of  their  errors  that  they  had  about 
baptism."  J  Optatus,  Bishop  of  Milvium,  in  persuading  the 
Donatists  to  union  with  the  church,  reminds  them  that  "the 
ecclesiastical  organization  is  one  and  the  same  with  us  and 
you.  Thougb  men's  minds  are  at  variance,  the  sacraments 
are  at  none.  And  we  may  say  we  believe  alike,  and  are 
sealed  icith  one  and  the  same  seal, — not  otherwise  baptized 
than  you,  nor  otherwise  ordained  than  you."§  And  Cres- 
conius,  a  Donatisfc,  settles  the  dispute : — "  There  is  between 
us  and  you  one  religion,  the  same  sacraments,  nothing  in 
Christian  ceremonies  different.     It  is  a  schis7n  that 


*  Waddington;  Wall;  Buck,  p.  329;  Moshcim,  vol.  ii.  233;  Milncr, 
vol.  i.  572;  Ruter,  p.  154. 
t  Moi-heim,  vol.  i.  123.  J  Wall,  vol.  ii.  130.         ^  Ibid.  vol.  i.  Ifil. 


140  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION 


is  between  u?,  not  a  /iere.sy/'*  Donatists,  therefore,  were 
Pedohaptkts.  Professor  Curtis,  evidently  a  man  of  some 
reading  and  a  degree  of  candor,  concedes  this  much, — that 
**  at  first  there  is  little  distinction  recorded  between  the 
Catholics  and  Donatists  in  regard  to  this  point,  [infant 
baptism  :]  it  is  even  probable  that  individual  cases  of  infant 
baptism  may  have  existed  among  the  earlier  Donatists/'f 

The  Baptists  attempt  to  trace  descent  also  from  the 
Novatians,  a  sect  of  dissenters  that  arose  in  the  year  250 
and  takes  its  name  from  Novatian,  who  separated  from  the 
church,  not  on  account  of  doctrine,  but  mere  points  of  dis- 
cipline.  ''They  were  distinguished  merely  by  their  disci- 
pline, for  their  religious  and  doctrinal  tenets  do  not  appear 
to  be  at  all  different  from  those  of  the  church. "J  The 
origin  of  this  sect  is  given  by  Neander  : — "  This  dissension 
arose  from  a  contest  about  the  election  of  a  bishop,  and  from 
a  contention  of  opinions  on  the  subject  of  churchpenance;''^ 
and  Novatian  himself,  "being  in  danger  of  death,  on  his 
sick-bed  received  the  rite  of  baptism  by  sprinkling,  as  his 
condition  required." ||  Mr.  Benedict  concedes  the  whole 
issue  here.  Says  he,  "  As  this  [the  Novatian]  is  the  first 
party  of  importance  who  were  acknowledged  to  be  sound  in 
doctrine  whicli  withdrew  from  the  established  church,  it 
is  proper  to  give  a  full  account  of  the  reasons  which  led  to 
the  separation:"^  and  infant  baptism  is  not  mentioned  as 
one  of  those  reasons. 

We  might  have  given  a  more  extended  examination  of 
this  topic,  and  adduced  many  other  authorities;  but  Mr. 
Benedict  saves  us  any  further  trouble  in  the  following  con- 


■■='■  Wall,  vol.  t.  161.  t  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  p.  23. 

J  Watson's  Theological  Dictionary,  p.  708. 

g  Neander's  Church  History,  p.  142.  ||  Milner,  vol.  i.  180. 

^  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists,  p.  4. 


A    MODERN    INVENTION.  141 


cession :  ''  I  sliall  not  attempt/^  says  he,  '^  to  trace  a  con- 
tinuous line  of  churches,  as  we  can  for  a  few  centuries  past 
in  Europe  and  America.  This  is  a  Jdnd  of  succession  to 
which  ice  never  laid  claim;  and,  of  course,  ice  make  no 
effort  to  prove  it.  We  place  no  reliance  on  this  sort  of 
testimony  to  establish  the  soundness  of  our  faith  or  the 
validity  of  our  administrations J'^  Well  said,  Benedict ! 
thou  art  properly  named  Benedict;  and  never  let  the 
Baptists  question  again  "the  soundness  of  the  faith  or  the 
validity  of  the  administrations''  of  their  Pedobaptist  breth- 
ren by  an  appeal  to  the  history  of  the  Christian  church.  . 

We  are  at  the  end  of  the  chain.  We  have  seen  that  the 
testimony  of  a  thousand  years  from  the  birth  of  Christ  is 
undisturbed  by  a  single  instance  of  opposition  to  the  apos- 
tolic practice  of  infant  baptism. f  Further:  there  was  no 
opposition  to  infant  baptism  for  twelve  hundred  years,  except 
from  Tertullian  and  Peter  de  Bruis,  both  of  whom  founded 
their  opposition  to  it  upon  grounds  that  would  overturn  the 
Baptist  Church.  Further :  for  more  than  fifteen  hundred 
years  of  the  Christian  era  there  was  not  a  single  church  on 
earth  that  opposed  infant  baptism  upon  ground  occupied  by 
the  modern  Baptist  Church.  Thus,  the  Baptist  Church 
must  date  its  origin  with  the  Anabaptists  in  Germany,  in 
the  sixteenth  century.  The  beginning  of  opposition  to  infant 
baptism,  upon  the  principles  maintained  by  the  Baptist 
Church,  is  coeval  with  the  beginning  of  the  Baptist  Church; 
and  no  opposition  of  this  kind  is  recorded  in  any  authentic 
church-history  further  back  than  the  sixteenth  century. 
From  the  sixteenth  century  to  the  times  of  the  apostles,  so 
far  from  discovering  any  evidence  of  the  restricted  com- 


*  History  of  the  Baptists,  p.  51. 

f  The  opposition  of  Tertullian  is  of  no  importajice,  for  ho  admitted  the 
itniccrsal  jjj-frw/ejior  of  infant  baptism  in  his  day. 


142  RESTRICTED   COMMrNION 


munion  of  the  modern  Baptist  Church,  we  find  no  founda- 
tion on  which  that  church  itself  could  properly  be  located. 

2.  But  the  origin  of  close  communion  in  the  Baptist 
Cliurch  is  more  recent  than  the  origin  of  the  Baptist 
Church  itself. 

Admit — which  we  do  not — that  the  Baptist  Church 
commenced  with  Tertullian,  who,  on  certain  grounds, 
opposed  infant  baptism  but  yet  admitted  its  universal 
prevalence :  did  he  separate  from  the  church  ?  Not  at  all, 
but  yet  communed  with  the  church.  Without  doubt  Ter- 
tullian  was  an  open-communionist.  This  the  Baptists  cannot 
deny.  Consequently  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that,  from 
the  time  of  Tertullian,  all  who  embraced  his  opinions  on  the 
subject  of  infant  baptism  practised  mixed  communion  also 
for  many  centuries  afterward ;  or,  if  any  practised  close  com- 
munion, they  did  not  do  it  from  opposition  to  infant  bap- 
tism. We  have  seen  that  the  particular  sects  through 
which  the  Baptists  claim  descent  till  the  time  of  Peter  de 
Bruis,  if  they  practised  close  communion  at  all,  did  not  do 
it  from  opposition  to  infant  baptism,  for  several  of  them 
practised  infant  baptism.  Not  one  of  these  was  a  Baptist 
sect;  no  historian  calls  them  Baptist  sects  :  they  were  known 
and  called  by  other  and  appropriate  names.  If  Baptists 
existed  at  all  till  the  time  when  the  Anabajjfists  arose,  they 
existed  in  Pedobaptist  churches,  and  so  practised  mixed 
communion.  In  a  word  :  we  find  no  evidence  that  the 
Baptists  ever  organized  themselves  ani/ichere  as  a  distinct 
and  sej)arate  sect,  under  the  authoriff/  and  necessiti/  of  bap- 
tism as  a  term  of  communion,  till  the  seventeenth  century. 

Of  this  the  following  is  the  proof: — The  ^^ first  Baptist 
Church"  in  England  was  formed  in  1602,*  and  "  the  first 


*Backris's  Church  History,  p.  19.     Benedict  gives  the  date  1607  or 
1608. 


A    MODI.KN    INVENTION.  143 

in  America"  in  1639>'  "Crosby,  iu  his  Hii:^tory  of  the 
English  Baptists^  says  that  they  bcgau  to  tonn  themselves 
into  separate  societies  iu  1633,  five  years  afier  the  birth  of 
John  Bunyan,  and  hardly  three  years  before  the  banish- 
ment of  Roger  Williams  in  this  -country.  Up  to  that  time 
they  had  been  intermixed  in  churches  with  other  non- 
conformists, though  during  nearly  the  whole  of  the  pre- 
ceding reign  they  had  contended  more  or  less  strenuously 
for  their  principles  as  Baptists.  Eleven  years  after  this  the 
whole  number  of  Baptist  churches  in  England  was  fifty-four, 
seven  of  which  were  in  London  ',  and,  when  John  Bunyan 
became  pastor  of  the  church  at  Bedford,  the  number  was 
still  greater.  Most  of  these  churches,  in  consequence  of  the 
ojJ^osiiion  which  they  received  from  others,  refused  to  com- 
mune with  them  altogether.  To  some,  however,  among 
whom  were  John  Humphrey  and  John  Bunyan,  this  course 
•appeared  uncalled-for  and  unchristian,  and  they  contended 
for  the  continuance  of  that  free  intercourse  at  the  Lord's 
table  which  had  been  steadily  maintained  hetween  Bap- 
tists and  Christians  of  other  persuasions  from  the  first. 
Bestricted  communion,  therefore,  appears  evidently  as  a 
modern  invention.  It  was  a  thing  only  of  recent  date 
when  Humphrey  wrote  his  '  Free  Admission  to  the  Sacra- 
ment,' and  Bunyan,  some  ten  years  after,  his  '  Differences 
about  Water  Baptism  no  Bar  to  Communion.'  And  now 
it  has  scarcely  the  sanction  of  two  hundred  years,  and  that 
from  onli/  a  portion  of  the  denomination  at  any  time.''^^ 

Br. -Howell  adduces  Wall  in  proof  that  the  "Parliament 
assembled  upon  the  restoration  of  Charles  II.  expressed  the 


*  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists,  pp.  441-459 ;  Prof.  Knowles's 
Memoir  of  Roger  AVilliams ;  Encyclopaedia  of  Religious  Knowledge, 
p.  190. 

f  Whitney  on  Open  Communion,  pp.  149-151. 


144  RESTRICTED   COMMUNION 


dislike  the  nation  had  conceived  against  these  men/' — that 
is,  '^the  Baptists,'" — and  that  an  act  was  passed  in  favor  of 
all  except  those  who  "had  committed  the  unpardonable 
crime  of  embracing  Baptist  principles."  Dr.  Howell  also 
quotes  from  Wall  'Uhe  language  of  Judge  Hale''  com- 
mendatory of  the  Baptists  "who  pretended  so  highly  to 
liberty  of  conscience."*  And  Dr.  Howell,  in  a  note,  says, 
"  The  Anabaptists  of  that  day,  on  all  hands,  are  confessed 
to  be  the  Baptists  of  our  tiines.''^  Very  well :  let  us  then 
refer  to  Wall,  whose  work  referred  to  is  before  me.  I  refer 
to  the  very  places,  and  in  connection  with  the  places,  cited 
by  Dr.  Howell;  and  let  us  see  how  the  matter  will  turn  out. 
Says  Wall,  "In  the  year  1533,  25th  of  Henry  the  YIII., 
John  Frith  (who  was  mm-tyred  that  year)  wrote  a  short 
tract,  which  he  calls  a  Declaration  of  Baptism :  in  it  he 
takes  notice  of  the  antipedohaptist  opinion,  as  then  lately 
risen  in  the  world,  (it  was  about  eleven  9/ears'  standing  in 
Germany,  and  was  but  lafelj/  got  into  Holland,  for  this 
icas  a  year  before  the  outrage  and,  dispersion  at  Munster.^ 
What  he  saj-s  of  it  is  this: — 'Now  is  there  an  opinion  risen 
among  certain,  which  af&rm  that  children  may  not  be  bap- 
tized until  they  come  unto  a  perfect  age ;  and  that  because 
they  have  no  faith.'  But  after  a  short  discourse,  he  breaks 
off  from  that  point  thus  : — 'But  this  matter  will  I  pass  over; 
for  I  trust  the  English  (unto  whom  I  write  this)  have  no 
such  opimons."''l  And  Wall  adds,  "At  what  time  it 
[Anabaptism,  that  is,  according  to  Dr.  Howell,  "modern 
Baptist  principles"]  began  to  be  embraced  by  any  English 
I  do  not  find  it  easy  to  discover.  But  it  is  plain  that  no 
very  considerable  number  in  England  were  of  this  persua- 
sion till  Sihout  sixty  7/ears  ago,"^ — from  the  time  Wall  wrote. 


*  Howell  on  Terms  of  Communion,  p.  123.  f  Ibid.  p.  122. 

X  Wall,  vol.  ii.  pp.  306-307.  ^  Ibid.  p.  315. 


A    MODERN    INVENTION.  145 


And  Wall  continues  :  ^'It  is  to  be  noted" — and  Dr.  Howell 
carefully  omits  this  whole  paragraph  —  ^Hhat  when  this 
opinion  began  first  to  increase  they  did  not  all  of  them 
proceed  to  separation  from  the  established  church  :  they 
held  it  sufficient  to  declare  their  sentiment  against  infant 
baptism,  to  reserve  their  own  children  to  adult  baptism,  and 
to  be  baptized  with  it  themselves,  without  renouncing  com- 
munion in  prayers,  and  in  the  other  sacrament,  with  the 
Pedobaptists.  In  the  year  1645,  when  Marshall  had  in  a 
sermon  objected  to  the  Antipedobaptists  the  sin  of  separa- 
tion, Toombes — a  Baptist — answers  th.at  this  was  practised 
only  by  some ;  that  it  was  the  fault  of  the  personSy  not  of 
the  principle  of  anfipedohajjtism;  that  he  himself  abhorred 
it:  and  he  quotes,  as  concurring  with  him,  Uhe  Confession 
of  Faith  in  the  name  of  seven  churches  of  Antipedobaptists 
in  London.^  But  these  that  continued  in  communion  were 
not  for  Oliver's  turn.  There  was  great  care  taken  to  instil 
into  them  principles  of  total  separation ;  which  proved  too 
effectual :  and  within  a  while  they  did  all,  or  almost  all, 
renounce  the  settled  conrjregaiionSj  and  became  great  enemies 
to  them.  In  which  separation  they  do  still  almost  all 
co7itin2ie."^  Thus,  the  true  origin  of  close  communion  in 
the  Baptist  Church,  according  to  Wall,  Dr.  Howell's  Pedo- 
baptist  witness,  is  to  be  dated  in  the  times  of  Oliver  Crom- 
well, and  ascribed  to  his  political  policy. 

Wall,  in  another  part  of  his  great  work,  observes,  "To 
speak  of  the  case  of  England  in  particular.  They  [the 
Baptists  of  his  times]  know  themselves  that  it  is  a  separa- 
tion herjnn  less  than  eighty  years  ago.  Any  very  aged  man 
may  remember  when  there  were  no  Englishmen,  or  at  least 
no  society  or  church  of  them,  of  that  persuasion.  Thei/  at 
frst  held  the  opinion  icithout  sfjxwatinfj  for  it.      Their 

^  Wall,  vol.  ii.  p.  ;]22. 
13 


146  IIESTIIIOTED    COMML'MON 


eldest  ,srj)ara(e  churches  are  not  jet  of  the  age  of  a  man, — 
viz. :  seoentj/  years.  I  mean  the  aged  meu  of  reading  among 
them  know  this  :  the  young  and  vulgar,  vrho  will  talk  right 
or  wrong  for  a  side,  do  not  own  it ;  but  the  others  own  it, 
and  thej  justify  it  by  pleading  that  their  opinion  is  the 
truest.'^*  Wall  then  gives  the  facts.  ''There  are  several 
good  books,"  says  he,  "written  purposely  on  this  subject, 
and  directed  to  the  Antipedobaptists,  to  show  that,  sup- 
posing their  opinion  to  be  true,  yet  their  schism  [separation] 
is  a  sin;  and  that  hy  men  of  both  the  opinions.  Mr.  Toombes, 
who  continued  an  Antipedobaptist  to  his  dying  day,  as  I  am 
told,  wrote  against  separation  for  it ;  and  for  communion 
with  the  parish  churches.  I  have  not  seen  that  book  ;  but 
this  I  have  seen,  where  he  defends  his  opinion  against  Mar- 
shal, and  where  Marshal  had  said,  'The  teachers  of  this 
opinion,  wherever  they  prevail,  take  their  proselytes  wholly 
oif  from  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  sacraments,  and  all 
other  acts  of  Christian  communion  both  public  and  private, 
from,  any  but  those  that  are  of  their  own  opinion.'  To  this 
Toombes  answers,  'This  is  indeed  a  wicked  practice,  justly 
to  be  abhorred  :  the  making  of  sects  ujwn  difference  of 
opinion,  reviling^  separating  from  their  teachers  and 
brethren  otherwise  faithfal,  because  there  is  not  the  same 
opinion  in  disputable  points  or  in  clear  truths  not  funda- 
mental, is  a  thing  too  frequent  in  all  sorts  of  dogmatists,  &c. 
I  look  upon  it  as  one  of  the  great  plagues  of  Christianity. 
You  shall  have  me  join  with  you  in  showing  my  detestation 
of  it.  Nevertheless,  first  it  is  to  .be  considered  that  this 
is  )iot  the  evil  of  antipedobaptism,  and  therefore  must  be 
charged  on  the  persons,  not  on  the  assertion  itself.'  x\nd 
accordingly  Mr.  Toombes  himself  continued  in  communion 
with  the  church  till  he  died."f     "Mr.  Stenuett,"  (a  Bap- 

*'  V»'all,  vul.  ii.  p.  557.  f  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  pp.  556-560, 


A    MODERN    INVENTION.  147 


tist;)  Wall  continues,  ''in  a  book  come  out  the  other  day, 
says,  'If  he  [Mr.  Ptussen]  mean  they  [the  Antipodobaptists] 
cannot  look  upon  those  that  differ  from  them  as  Christians, 
the  contrary  is  well  known.''  "*  Wall  then  quotes  from 
their  confessions.  ''  But  it  is  best  to  quote  from  their  con- 
fessions. In  the  first  year  of  King  William,  one  party  of 
the  Antipedobaptists  published  a  confession  of  their  faith: 
they  say  it  is  the  same  for  substance  with  that  published 
1648,  in  the  name  of  seven  churches,  which  I  suppose 
were  the  first  in  England.  Now  they  say  they  are  con- 
cerned for  'above  a  hundred.'  They  declare  in  the  preface 
the  design  both  of  that  and  this  confession  to  be  '  to  mani- 
fest their  consent  with  both  [the  Presbyterians  and  Inde- 
pendents] in  all  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  Christian 
religion ;'  and,  as  they  add  afterwards,  with  other  Pro- 
testants. It  is  plain,  then,  that  they  count  not  tlie  age  or 
manner  of  receiving  baptism  to  be  fundamental. ""i-  Bap- 
tist principles,  then,  in  their  origin,  did  not  involve  separate 
or  strict  communion;  and  this  opinion  was  not  one  of  the 
"principles"  embraced  by  the  Baptists  ia  more  recent 
times. 

But  Dr.  Howell  endeavors  to  make  the  impression  that 
Baptists  have  sufi"ered  martyrdom  for  the  principles  which 
the  present  Baptist  Church  embraces.  "Wall,  whose 
language,"  says  he,  "in  substance  I  adopt,  affirms  that' it 
was  but  a  short  time  ere  ^four  Baptists — three  men  and 
one  woman — were  condemned  to  boar  fagots  at  Paul's  Cross, 
and  -that  three  days  after  a  man  and  woman  were  burnt  at 
Smithfield.'  Ten  other  Baptists  were,  in  a  few  weeks  more, 
put  to  death;  and  some  months  subsequently /o?;?'^^^?^  more 
sufi"ered  the  same  fate."J  But,  in  the  first  place.  Dr.  Howell 
omits    an   important   testimony  of   his  historian,  namely, 

*  Wall,  vol.  ii.  p.  551.  f  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  552. 

j  Terms  of  Communion,  p.  125. 


148  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION 


"T/m  year  the  name  of  tliis  sect  [Anabaptist]  first  appears 
in  our  Englisli  Chronicles."'''  And,  secondly,  he  omits  the 
true  reasons  for  which  they  suffered  death,  which  Wall 
gives.  ''  The  Bishop  of  Salisbury  (History  of  the  Preforma- 
tion, part  1,  book  3,  p.  195)  mentions  these  men,  but  not 
under  the  name  of  Anabaptists.  He  says  that  in  May 
this  year  (1535)  nineteen  Hollanders  were  accused  of  some 
heretical  opinions, — 'denying  Christ  to  be  both  God  and 
Man;  or  that  he  took  flesh  and  blood  of  the  virgin  Mary; 
or  that  the  sacraments  had  any  effect  on  those  that  received 
them  :  in  which  opinions  fourteen  of  them  remained  obsti- 
nate, and  were  burnt  by  pairs  in  several  places.'  Here  is 
nothing  peculiarly  about  infant  haptlsm.  But  the  circum- 
stance of  time,  Ma}^,  1535,  leads  one  to  think  that  they 
were  some  of  them  that  were  to  have  made  a  part  in  the 
insurrection  at  x\msterdam.  For  the  author  of  an  English 
pamjDhlet,  written  1647,  called  A  Short  History  of  the  Ana- 
baptists, (who  has  made  a  good  collection  out  of  Sleiden, 
-Hortentius,  &c.,)  says  that  many  Dutchmen  from  several 
parts,  who  had  been  appointed  to  assist  John  Geles  in  the 
surprise  of  Amsterdam  before  mentioned,  hearing  the  ill 
success,  fled  to  England  in  two  ships.  Now,  this  insurrec- 
tion was  in  this  very  month.  And  that  author  reckons 
those  two  ship-loads  to  be  tlic  first  scminari/  of  Dutch 
Antipedohaptists  in  En(jlancL'''\ 

From  this  investigation  we  arc  led  to  the  following  con- 
clusions. First,  that  antipedobaptism  in  England  is  of 
modern  date.  Secondly,  that  strict  communion  is  more 
modern  still.  Thirdly,  that  Dr.  Howell  has  no  just  ground 
on  which  to  boast  of  his  English  Baptist  ancestry,  and  it 
would  seem  that  he  should  be  the  last  to  admit  that  "the 
Anabaptists  of  that  day  are  on  all  hands  confessed  to  bo 
the  Baptists  of  our  times." 


*  Wall,  vol.  ii.  p.  ?.lfl.  t  I^if^-  "^'"l-  i'-  PP-  -T^-'^'ll, 


A    MODERN    INVENTION.  149 


Dr.  Howell  vehemently  exults, — ''  We  glory  iu  our  whole 
spiritual  ancestry,  among  whom  we  number  the  apostles  of 
Christ  and  the  saints  and  martyrs  of  all  ages.''*  Yf  ould  the 
doctor's  apostolic  ancestry  have  excluded  from  communion 
those  whom  they  acknowledged  to  be  Christians  ?  and  were 
not  thousands  of  the  saints  and  martyrs  of  all  ages  Pedo- 
baptists  ?  Have  not  nearly  the  entire  multitude  of  saints 
since  the  days  of  Christ,  embracing  thousands  of  those  whom 
the  Baptists  associate  with  their  spiritual  ancestry,  been  Pedo- 
baptists  ?  Is  not  nearly  the  whole  body  of  them  in  the  pre- 
sent day  Pedobaptists  ?  Of  the  ^' whole  spiritual  ancesti-y" 
which  the  doctor  claims,  I  challenge  him  to  name  a  single  case, 
except  an  occasional  one  in  very  recent  times,  who  suffered 
martyrdom  for  opposition  to  infant  baptism ;  and  he  is  wel- 
come to  the  glory  of  descent  from  this  sort  of  ancestry. 
While  we  are  unwilling  to  admit  the  ancestral  fame  to 
which  he  aspires,  we  certainly  feel  no  hesitation  in  allowing 
that  in  the  art  of  boasting  he  is  entitled  to  the  laurel. 
Robert  Hall  places  the  Baptists  in  the  following  alter- 
native : — "  What  became  of  that  portion  of  the  ancient 
church  [on  the  supposition  that  the  ancient  church  was 
Baptist]  which  refused  to  adopt  the  baptism  of  infants? 
Did  they  separate  from  their  brethren  in  order  to  form  dis- 
tinct and  exclusive  societies  ?  Of  this  not  the  faintest  trace 
or  vestige  is  to  be  found  in  ecclesiastical  history;  and  the 
supposition  is  completely  refuted  by  the  concurrent  testi- 
mony of  ancient  writers  to  the  universal  incorporation  of 
orthodox  Christians  into  one  grand  community.  We  chal- 
lenge our  opponents  to  produce  the  shadow  of  evidence  in 
favor  of  the  existence  during  that  long  tract  of  time  of  a 
single  society  of  which  adult  baptism  was  the  distinguishing 
characteristic.     We  well  know  that  in  the  latter  part  of  his 


*  Sacramental  Communion,  p.  18. 
13* 


150  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION 


life  Tertullian  did  secede  from  tlie  orthodox  Catholic  churcli, 
but  we  are  equally  certain  that  he  was  moved  to  this 
measure,  not  by  his  disapprobation  of  infant  baptism,  but 
solely  by  his  attachment  to  the  Montanlsts.  We  therefore 
offer  our  opponents  the  alternative  either  of  affirming  that 
the  transition  from  the  primitive  to  the  modern  usage  was 
sudden  and  instantaneous,  in  opposition  to  all  that  obser- 
vation suggests  respecting  the  operations  of  mind,  or  of 
acknowledging  that  for  two  centuries  the  predecessors  of 
the  present  Baptists  unanimousli/  approved  and  practised 
a  mixed  communion, — a  communion  in  loliich  Baptists 
and  Pedohaptists  united  in  the  same  societies.''^ 

The  extreme  presumption  of  the  Baptists  must  involve 
them  in  inextricable  difficulties  on  every  hand.  They 
assume  that  the  apostolic  churches,  and  the  churches  for  a 
century  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  were  Baptist  churches, 
and  that  subsequently  infant  baptism  was  introduced,  and 
became  '^  the  main  pillar  of  Popery"  and  principal  source 
of  the  evils  and  corruptions  of  Popery.  Very  well :  with 
all  the  important  and  comprehensive  concessions  of  Baptist 
writers  to  the  piety  and  efficiency  of  the  evangelical  Pedo- 
haptists of  modern  times  before  us,  and  supposing  that  the 
first  Pedohaptists  were  as  eminent  for  piety  and  usefulness 
as  those  of  our  times,  we  ask,  in  the  first  place,  for  the  least 
proof  that  any  Baptists  at  all  existed  in  those  times;  or, 
secondl}^,  if  they  existed,  that  they  expressed-  the  same 
friendly  regard  for  their  pious  Pedobaptist  brethren  in  those 
times  as  the  Baptists  do  now,  and  separated  from  them  only 
on  account  of  infant  baptism.  Tertullian,  we  have  seen, 
though  he  entertained  singular  views  of  baptism,  remained 
in  the  communion  of  the  church,  and  was  not  expelled  the 
communion  till   he  became  a   Montanist.      On  these  two 

«■  Hfiirs  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  182. 


A    :\rODF.RX    INVENTIO.V.  151 


points  history  is  silent;  and  the  conclusion,  founded  upon 
the  concessions,  is  as  phiin  as  open  day  that  infant  baptism 
was  not  the  cause  of  the  early  divisions  in  the  church 
which  the  Baptists  ascribe  to  "Baptist  principles/'  nor 
made  the  occasion  of  a  separate  communion,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  modern  Baptist  Church. 

We  close  this  chapter  with  the  following  reflections  : — 

1.  Opposition  to  infant  baptism  is  of  comparatively  recent 
date. 

2.  The  origin  of  the  present  Baptist  Church  is  more 
recent  still. 

3.  Close  communion  in  the  Baptist  Church  is  still  more 
recent  than  the  origin  of  the  Baptist  Church, 

4.  Several  of  the  sects  through  which  the  Baptists  claim 
descent  did  not  separate  from  the  church  on  account  of 
infant  baptism,  for  they  practised  infant  baptism  after  their 
separation. 

5.  One  of  these  sects  particularly — the  AYaldenses,  who 
practised  infant  baptism — did  commune  with  the  "Keformed 
churches  in  France  and  Geneva,"  which  is  opposed  to  the 
modern  requisition  of  memhership  in  the  Baptist  Church, 
or  in  churches  of  'Mike  faith  and  order.'' 

6.  The  modern  Baptist  Church  itself,  which  was  scat- 
tered among  the  Pedobaptist  churches,  practised  mixed 
communion  with  them,  and,  at  its  commencement  as  a 
separate  and  organized  sect,  practised  open  communion. 


152  COMMUNION    CONFINED   TO 


CHAPTER  X. 

COMMUNION  CONFINED  TO    MEMBERSHIP   IN   THE   BAPTIST 
CHURCH. 

The  heading  of  this  chapter  may  startle  the  reader ;  but 
such  is  the  fact ;  and  in  the  fact  we  have  a  convincing  and 
melancholy  proof  of  the  spirit  and  inconsistency  of  strict 
Baptists.  If  baptism  be  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to 
sacramental  communion,  and  immersion  only  is  baptism, 
then  immersed  members  in  Pedobaptist  churches  have  a 
right  to  communion  in  the  Baptist  Church.  They  have 
as  good  a  right  to  communion  in  the  Baptist  Church  as  the 
Baptists  themselves  have,  for  in  every  other  particular  the 
Baptists  concede  that  the  Pedobaptists  are  qualified  for  the 
communion,  and  only  want  immersion  to  give  them  a  title 
to  it. 

A  few  quotations  on  this  point  will  suffice  : — "  Let  them 
[the  Pedobaptists]  return  to  the  baptism  of  the  Bible,  and 
all  separation  will  cease. ^'*  ^^  A  believer  as  the  candidate, 
and  immersion  as  baptism,  all  confess  to  be  legitimate.  To 
this  intelligent  Pedobaptists  can  with  a  good  conscience 
confine  themselves.  Beyond  this  we  cannot,  dare  not,  go. 
Thus  far  all  perfectly  harmonize. ^'f  ^'If  we  understand 
the  case  aright,  they  [Pedobaptists]  could  all  be  immersed 
without  any  violation  of  conscience.  By  so  doing  they 
remove  the  only  barrier  to  our  church-communion." J     ^'  It 

*■  R.  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  p.  248. 

•f  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  264. 

X  Remington  on  Restrioted  Communion,  p.  236. 


MEMBERSHIP   IN    THE    BAPTIST    CHURCH.  153 


is  the  Lord's  table;  and  this  is  the  very  reason  why  we  do 
not  admit  those  who  have  not  the  prerequisite  [immersion] 
which  the  Lord  requires."* 

This  is  the  language  of  authorities  in  the  Baptist  Church 
in  England  and  America. 

But  we  shall  show  that  the  want  of  immersion  is  not  the 
true  reason  why  Pedobaptists  are  excluded  from  the  Lord's 
table  in  the  Baptist  Church.  We  shall  show,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Mr.  Whitney,  himself  a  Baptist,  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  with  the  Baptists  is  "  a  denominational  affair  alto- 
gether;" that  it  is  a  rule  of  the  Baptist  Church  to  exclude 
all  from  the  communion  who  are  not  ^'members  of  some 
church  of  like  faith  and  order," — that  is,  the  Baptist 
Church.  This  is  the  real  ground  of  the  close  commu- 
nion of  the  Baptist  Church,  notwithstanding  the  specious 
endeavors  to  lay  the  whole  burden  of  blame  upon  Pedo- 
baptist  churches.  It  is  well  known  that  immersed  members 
of  pious  Pedobaptist  churches,  all  over  the  land,  are  excluded 
from  communion  in  the  Baptist  Church,  except  in  cases 
acknowledged  to  be  violations  of  her  restrictive  rules.  Mr. 
Whitney  says  of  himself,  "  It  was  simply  because  I  ques- 
tioned the  propriety  of  this  course  that  the  Council  which 
met  in  the  autumn  of  1851  to  recognise  me  as  pastor  of  the 
church  at  Westport  refused  to  do  it.  They  had  examined 
me  on  all  the  various  points  on  which  it  is  customary  to 
examine  on  such  occasions, — experimental  religion,  call  to 
the  ministry,  doctrinal  views,  church-polity,  and  baptism. 
Apparently  only  one  question  more  remained  to  be  asked. 
It  was  this  : — ^  In  administering  the  Lord's  Supper,  would 
you  invite  to  it  any  credible  Christians  who  are  baptized, 
or  would  you  restrict  your  invitations  to  such  as  are  mem- 

*■  R.  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  p.  243 ;  Howell  on  Com- 
munion, p.  107 5  Cone  on  Terms  of  Communion,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  iii. 
p.  412. 


154  COMMUNION    CONFINED    TO 


bers  oi  Baptist  churches?'  Mj  reply  was,  'I  would  invite 
any  who  are  baptized  and  leading  consistent  Christian  lives.' 
But  for  this  reply,  and  because  I  was  unable  after  all  that 
was  said  to  see  the  impropriety  of  it,  the  Council  refused  to 
install  me/'*  Mr.  Whitney  quotes  a  dialogue  from  Mr. 
Remington's  "Defence  of  Restricted  Communion"  to  the 
same  purpose;  and,  as  this  "Defence"  is  before  me,  I  give 
it  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Remington,  Mr.  C,  a  Baptist 
minister,  is  about  to  administer  the  communion.  Mr.  R., 
a  Methodist  minister  and  member  of  the  New  England 
Conference,  is  present,  and  says,  "  My  name  is  R.  I  am  a 
member  of  the  Christian  church  and  a  minister  of  the 
gospel.  "Will  you  permit  me  to  sit  down  with  you  and  your 
church  at  the  Lord's  table?"  C.  "Are  you  a  Baptist?" 
R.  "  No,  sir;  I  am  a  Methodist  and  a  member  of  the  New 
England  Conference  of  ministers;  and  I  should  like,  if 
agreeable,  to  commemorate  the  sufferings  and  death  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  you."  C.  "  But,  my  brother,  you 
must  be  baptized  before  you  come  with  us  to  the  Lord's 
table  :  and  you  know  our  principles, — that  we  consider 
no  baptism  valid  but  immersion."  R.  "True;  but  I  have 
been  immersed."  C.  "  Let  me  inquire,  then,  my  brother, 
do  you,  both  by  precept  and  example,  sanction  immersion 
as  the  only  gospel  baptism  ?"  R.  "  Oh,  no,  sir.  I  believe 
that  a  valid  gospel  baptism  may  be  performed  by  either 
sprinkling  or  pouring."  C.  "I  thought  so;  and  you  cer- 
tainly know  that  with  such  views  and  practice  we  should 
make  ourselves  very  inconsistent  to  admit  you  to  the  com- 
munion with  us. "f  Mr.  Remington's  "Defence"  is  endorsed 
by  the  "American  Baptist  Publication  Society,"  and  hence 
it  contains  the  "views"  on  which  the  Baptist  Church  acts 


*  Whitney  on  Communion,  pp.  95,  96. 

f  Remington  on  Restricted  Communion,  pp.  15,  16. 


MEMBERSHIP    IN    THE    BAPTIST    CHURCH.  155 


in  the  United  States.  '^  Even  the  members  of  Free-AVill 
Baptist  churches  are  never  invited,  and  never  would  be 
communed  with  if  it  could  be  avoided.  But  it  is  not  for 
the  want  of  repentance,  faith,  and  baptism ;  for  the  moment 
a  Free- Will  Baptist  joins  a  close-communion  church  he  is  no 
longer  unqualified.  Nor  are  members  of  Calvinistic  open 
Baptist  churches — persons  like  Alexander  Carson,  Baptist 
"VV.  Noel,  and  a  large  share  of  the  Baptists  in  England  and 
Canada — regarded  by  ^regular'  Baptists  as  proper  fellow- 
communicants.''*  That  the  Lord's  Supper  is  perverted  to 
a  denominational  ordinance  is  conceded  by  Professor  Curtis, 
quoted  by  Mr.  Whitney : — '^  All  that  our  course  in  declining 
to  celebrate  with  members  of  other  denominations  exhibits, 
is  that  such  persons  do  not  belong  to  churches  of  our  order. 
We  do  not  oicn  them  as  Bajytists.^f 

Thus,  after  all  this  ado  about  '^repentance,  faith,  and 
baptism,  as  indispensable  prerequisites" J  to  sacramental 
communion,  they  are  not  sufficient  in  an  immersed  Pedo- 
baptist,  nor  in  a  Free- Will  Baptist,  nor  in  an  open-communion 
Baptist,  to  entitle  to  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  close-com- 
munion Baptist  Church !  ^'Return  to  the  baptism  of  the 
Bible,"  that  is,  be  immersed,  "and  all  separation  will 
cease."  It  is  done ;  and  the  separation  continues  I  ''TThus 
far  all  perfectly  harmonize ;"  and  yet  there  is  no  harmony ! 
*^  By  being  immersed,  the  only  barrier  to  our  church-com- 
munion is  removed."  It  is  done ;  and  Christians  are  as 
far  removed  from  communion  with  the  Baptists  as  if  they 
had  not  been  immersed!  "It  is  the  Lord's  table;  yes,  it 
is  the  Lord's  table ;  and  that  is  the  very  reason  why  we  do 
not  admit  those  who  have  not  the  prerequisite  [immersion] 
which  the  Lord  requires."     And  those  who  have  this  pre- 


*  Whitney  on  Open  Communion,  pp.  97,  9S.  f  Ibid.  p.  101. 

I  IIowoU  on  Communion. 


156  COMMUNION    CONFINED    TO 


requisite  are  repelled  from  tlie  Lord's  table  !  They  do  not 
belong  to  '^churcbes  of  our  order  I  They  are  not  Bap- 
tists r'  This,  then,  is  the  upshot  of  the  whole  matter, — a 
doubling  back  of  the  ingenuity  of  the  Baptist  Church  into 
a  denial  of  its  own  terms  of  communion, -a  settling  down 
around  the  Lord's  table  as  belonging  to  the  Baj^tisfs  alone, 
a  prescription  of  membership  in  the  Baptist  Church  as  the 
only  condition  of  admission  to  the  Lord's  table,  a  perversion 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  a  mere  denominational  observance  I 
I  must  be  a  Baptist;  that  is  not  enough:  I  must  be  a 
'■h-egular^  close-communion  Baptist,  or  I  cannot  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Lord's  table  in  the  Baptist  Church !  Gospel 
of  Heaven  !  is  this  thy  law?  Son  of  God,  is  this  thy  gospel  ? 
No,  no !  But  if  a  divine  requisition  is  indeed  laid  upon  all 
Christians  to  join  the  Baptist  Church,  then  let  us  hear  no 
more  about  ^^  repentance,  faith,  and  immersion  as  being  the 
divinely-ordained  and  unchangeahle  terms  of  sacramental 
communion."  Have  done  forever  with  the  pretence  that 
''we  cannot  commune  with  the  Pedobaptists,  because  they 
are  not  immersed,"  whilst  the  true  reason  declared  is  be- 
cause "  tliey  are  not  of  churches  of  our  order.''  Proclaim 
this  through  the  land,  and  be  honest.  Iletract  the  conces- 
sion that  ''Pedobaptists  have  a  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
and  do  right  in  partaking  of  it."  Say  that  we  usurp  the 
sacred  privilege  of  the  Baptist  Church.  Efface  the  seal 
of  endorsation  from  the  sentences  of  Dr.  Howell : — '^Eepent- 
ance  toward  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,. 
and  haptis7n  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  are  incon- 
trovertihly  THE  terms  of  communion,  appointed  hy  the 
King  of  Zion,  and,  from  loJiich  we  are  forhidden,  hy  the 
■most  sacred  ohligations,  at  any  time,  for  any  p>urpose,  or 
under  any  circumstances,  to  dejjart."*    "We  are  prohibited 

*■  Howoll  on  Communion,  p.  102. 


MEMBERSHIP    IN    THE    BAPTIST    CHURCH.  157 


from  adopting  any  terms  of  communion  other  than  those 
ordained  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christy  and  that  to  these  we 
are  at  all  times,  and  in  all  circumstances,  under  obligations 
to  adhere,  individually  and  collectively,  icitlwiit  addition, 
diminutionj  or  change.''^  '^Repentance  toward  God,  and 
faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  baptism  in  the  name 
of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  indispensable  terms 
of  approach  to  the  Lord's  table,  and  to  toliicli  those  loho 
have  observed  these  preliminaries  cannot  afterward  he 
debarred  of  access  but  in  consequence  of  a  forfeiture  of 
Christian  character  by  immorality  or  heresy." f  Let  .the 
'^  American  Baptist  Publication  Society''  expunge  these 
sentences,  or  receive  pious  Pedobaptists  who  have  been  im- 
mersed, or  prove  that  immersed  Pedobaptists  have  '^  forfeited 
Christian  character  by  immorality  or  heresy.'^  And  let  the 
Society  add,  or  cause  to  be  added,  to  the  terms  as  stated 
by  Dr.  Howell,  ''the  great  American  champion  of  their 
system,''  that  "  membership  in  the  Baptist  Church  is  in- 
dispensable to  communion  in  the  Baptist  Church."  If 
Luther,  Melancthon,  Calvin,  Owen,  Baxter,  Doddridge, 
Edwards,  Wesley,  Whitefield,  Brainard,  Payson,  were  now  to 
appear,  though  they  might  submit  to  immersion,  they  could 
not  be  admitted  to  communion  with  the  Baptists  unless 
they  Joined  the  Baptist  Church  ;  and  Bunyan,  Hall,  Carson, 
Noel,  and  Roger  Williams,  the  founder  of  the  Baptist 
Church  in  America, — all  Baptists, — if  now  alive,  must  like- 
wise be  excluded,  because  not  members  of  "like  faith  and 
order;''  that  is,  not  "regular"  Baptists! 

The  advice  of  Mr.  Whitney  is  capital : — "  Why  not  deny 
at  once  the  sacramental  table  to  be  the  Lord's,  and  honestly 
and  avowedly  contend  for  its  being  a  denominational  table  ? 
If  it  be  true,  as  the  practice  of  restricted  communion  from 


*  Howell  on  Communiou,  p.  265,  f  Ibid,  p.  266. 

U 


158  COMMUNION    CONFINED    TO 


one  end  of  the  land  to  the  other  says,  that  the  qualification 
for  communion  is  not  repentance,  faith,  and  baptism  merely, 
but  simply  a  place  in  the  Baptist  denomination,  then  let  us 
hear  no  more  about  not  communing  with  others  on  the 
ground  of  their  not  being  baptized.  For  the  truth's  sake 
let  us  have  consistency  and  honesty.  Let  it  be  frankly 
and  fearlessly  asserted  that  the  communion-table  is  not  the 
Lord's,  nor  for  his  people,  but  a  denominational  table  for 
those  only  who  are  of  our  denomination.  If  the  system  is 
justifiable,  there  is  nothing  to  gain  by  urging  false  pleas  in 
its  behalf  and  cloaking  its  deformities  under  falsehoods, 
nor  any  thing  to  be  feared  by  placing  it  on  its  true  basis 
and  attempting  to  defend  it  as  it  is.  Should  it  fall  when 
placed  there  and  left  to  stand  without  the  fictitious  props 
which  now  support  it,  let  it  fall.  It  is  unworthy  to  stand; 
and  the  sooner  it  falls  the  better,  as  well  for  those  who 
practise  it  as  for  the  church  at  large,  and  for  the  general 
advancement  among  men  of  the  pure  and  ennobling  prin- 
ciples of  the  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God."* 

The  restriction  of  communion  to  memhersliip  in  the 
*' Baptist  Church  order'  is  an  act  of  ecclesiastical  proscrip- 
tion surpassed  only  by  papal  usurpation.  This  single  re- 
quisition of  the  Baptist  Church  is  repellent  of  the  other 
churches  of  Christendom  to  the  extent  that  circumstances 
and  power  will  allow.  It  is  intolerant  to  the  utmost 
bounds  of  civil  freedom ;  it  is  a  wholesale  abuse  of  religious 
liberty.  It  is  a  law  which  civil  authority  and  religion  at 
present  restrain,  but  which,  should  occasion  offer,  would 
jeopardize  the  existence  of  both  civil  authority  and  religion. 
The  apostolic  church  contained  no  such  law;  and  yet  it  de- 
generated into  papal  tyrannj'.  It  retrenches  the  word  of 
God.     It  is  the  defence  of  a  favorite  cause  at  all  hazards, 

*  "Whitney  on  Open  Commuuion,  pp.  110,  111. 


MEMBERSHIP    IN    THE    BAPTIST    CHURCH.  159 


which  in  the  end  must  fetter  its  supporters  in  the  chains 
of  their  own  forging.  It-  is  the  full  scope  of  arbitrary  as- 
sumptions. It  has  not  an  element, -not  even  the  appearance, 
of  truth  in  it.  It  has  no  intrinsic  worth,  no  salutary  ten- 
dency. It  is  not  capable  of  any  sort  of  vindication.  It  i8 
unworthy  of  a  church  claiming  to  be  fairer  and  purer  than 
the  rest  of  God's  people  and  boasting  of  being  the  only 
organization  constructed  conformably  to  the  apostolic  model. 
It  is  a  bold  abuse  of  Pedobaptist  authorities  adduced  in 
proof  that  "  baptism  is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to 
sacramental  communion;"  for  these  authorities  never  con- 
fined sacramental  communion  to  churches  of  "  the  same 
faith  and  order,"  but  sanctioned  and  encouraged  it  in 
churches  of  different  organizations  —  Romish  and  other 
heresies  excepted — from  the  apostolic  times  till  the  present. 
It  is  a  deadly  polemical  thrust  at  evangelical  Pedobaptism 
in  all  its  sects,  and  in  their  ultimate  overthrow  would  reap 
the  spoils  of  their  splendid  fortunes.  In  tendency  it  over- 
turns the  foundations  of  the  common  faith  and  renders  all 
mutual  forbearance  and  approximation  impossible.  It  di- 
vides the  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  into  two  great  parties 
as  mutually  inaccessible  and  mutually  hostile  as  were  the 
Jews  and  Samaritans.  It  is  a  deep-laid  systematic  scheme, 
that  parsimoniously  monopolizes  the  most  precious  treasures 
of  divine  wisdom  and  love.  This  the  testimony  of  the 
weightiest  witness  for  God!  the  expenditure  of  the  talents 
of  the  most  trustworthy  disciples  and  friends  of  Jesus ! 
This  the  weapon  which  the  only  "regularly"  organized 
gospel  corps  wields  in  strenuous  opposition  to  the  primitive 
church  supposed  to  be  degenerated  into  pious  pedobaptism  ! 
This  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  those  who  are 
"elected"  to  guide  the  heirs  of  the  covenant  by  the  living 
word,  and  bear  the  warnings  and  threateniugs  of  the  law 
to  the  wicked  and  impenitent !    This  the  method  by  which 


IGO  COMMUNION    CONFINED    TO 


the  age  is  to  be  animated  with  a-  higher  degree  of  spiritual 
life,  and  be  made  a  season  of  celestial  efflorescence  for  all 
future  time  !  This  the  guardianship  of  the  truth,  whole 
and  entire  !  This  the  wall  "  against  which  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail"  !  But  enough.  In  reason  it  is  wholly 
defective ;  of  Biblical  authority  it  is  wholly  destitute ;  and 
the  New  Testament  is  directly  opposed  to  it. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  Baptists  will  not  admit  to  the 
communion  Pedobaptists  who  in  immersion  obtained  the 
manifest  ^^  sanction"  of  God  himself.  Read  the  following  : 
"It  happened,"  says  Mr.  Remington,  in  his  "Farewell 
Letter  to  his  Late  [Methodist]  Charge,"  "a  little  more  than 
two  months  ago,  that  several  persons  belonging  to  my  con- 
gregation desired  to  be  immersed.  I  could  not  refuse  them, 
though  I  resolved  not  to  immerse  them  myself.  Accord- 
ingly, I  engaged  a  brother  in  the  ministry  to  officiate  for  me. 
To  confess  the  whole  truth,  I  felt  rather  vexed  than  pleased. 
The  weather  was  cold,  and  I  thought  it  presumptuous  to  go 
into  the  water  under  such  circumstances.  There  were  eight 
candidates,  all  females,  one  of  whom  was  rather  feeble  in 
health ;  and  I  was  requested  to  reserve  her  for  the  last, — 
which  request  I  readily  complied  with.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
they  went  down  into  the  water  one  by  one,  and  came 
straightway  up  out  of  the  water,  while  I  stood  upon  the 
shore  a  silent  spectator.  Soon,  however,  the  scene  began 
to  melt  my  hearty  and  something  seemed  to  kindly  whisper, 
TJiis  is  the  way  to  follow  Jesus.  I  felt  that  Jesus  was 
present  to  own  and  sanction  his  ordinance.  That  Spirit 
that  descended  upon  him  at  his  baptism  in  the  river  Jordan 
appeared  to  be  hovering  over  us  and  to  change  the  whole 
aspect  of  the  occasion  in  my  mind  to  one  of  the  most  intense 
i'.iterest  and  delight.  At  length  the  last  subject  came;  that 
feeble  young  woman  went  down  into  the  water,  and,  to  my 
siirjyrhe,  she  came  up  out  of  the  water  praising  God,  &c. 


MEMBERSHIP   IN    THE    BAPTIST    CHURCH.  IGl 


My  heart  was  humbled,  and  I  felt  to  mingle  my  tears  of 
gratitude  with  hers.  The  impression  made  upon  my  heart 
that  moruing  I  trust  will  continue  while  memory  endures/'* 
And  yet  neither  Mr.  Remington  nor  any  other  Baptist 
minister  would  admit  ''that  feeble  young  woman/'  nor  any 
of  the  rest  immersed  with  her,  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  unless 
they  joined  the  Baptist  Church.  God*s  "sanction'^  of 
Pedobaptist  immersions  is  not  enough  to  entitle  to  a  place 
at  his  table!  ''Jesus  is  present  to  own  and  sanction  his 
ordinance'^  at  the  hands  of  a  Pedobaptist  administrator, 
and  "the  Spirit  appears  hovering  over''  the  scene  as  at  the 
baptism  of  Christ,  and.  Mr.  Remington  feels  "the  most 
intense  interest  and  delight"  on  the  occasion,  and  is  "sur- 
prised" at  the  effect  that  followed, — yea,  his  "heart  is 
meltedj'  and  he  hears  "something  kindly  whispering,  This 
is  the  way  to  follow  Jesus^^ — and  yet  these  very  Christians 
are  not  worthy  of  participation  at  the  Lord's  table  with  the 
Baptists  !  If  baptism  at  the  hands  of  a  Pedobaptist  was  not 
vitiated,  how  can  the  Lord's  Supper  at  the  same  hands  be? 
If  God  in  these  cases  owned  and  sanctioned  the  ordinance 
that  the  Baptists  make  indispensably  prerequisite  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  by  what  authority  can  the  Baptists  deny  the 
right  of  these  persons  to  the  Lord's  Supper?  That  mem- 
hership  in  the  Baptist  Church  is  an  indispensable  condition 
to  sacramental  communion  is  therefore  refuted  by  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Remington  himself. 

"  Churches  of  like  faith  and  order"  !  Worse  and  worse. 
Is  not  prayer  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  with  every  other  act  of 
proper  worship,  alilce  acceptable  devotion  and  the  peculiar 
prerogative  of  every  Christian  church?  "Like  faith;" 
very  well :  and  yet  they  exclude  those  who  they  acknow- 
ledge "have  obtained   like  precious   faith  with"*  them- 

*■  Remington's  Reasons  for  Becoming  a  Baptist,  pp.  53,  59 
14* 


162  COMMUNION    CONFINED    TO 


selves, — a  shot  point-blank  from  the  apostolic  battery 
against  this  peculiarity  of  the  Baptist  Church,  Peter  at 
lirst  refused  even  to  eat  with  the  Gentiles ;  but,  when  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  upon  them  assembled  in  the  house  of  Cor- 
nelius, he  hesitated  not  a  moment  to  admit  them  to  all  the 
privileges  of  the  Christian  church,  "  forasmuch,''  says  he, 
'^as  God  gave  them  the  like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us  who 
believed /'f  and  adds,  "who  was  I  that  I  should  withstand 
God?" — that  I  should  be  stricter  or  moi^e  orderly  than 
God  himself?  Peter  had  as  good  evidence  that  these 
Gentiles  had  a  right  to  the  privileges  of  the  church  as  the 
converted  Jews  had;  and  the  Baptists  concede,  what  is 
obvious  on  every  hand,  that  pious  Pedobaptists  have  "the 
like  gift"  with  themselves.  Peter,  an  apostle,  was  not 
intolerant  enough  to  "withstand  God;"  and  his  practice 
may  be  recommended  to  the  serious  consideration  of  the 
Baptists.  Mr,  Hall  observes,  "  The  practice  which  we 
are  reprobating  is  nearly  equivalent  to  the  inscription 
over  the  door.  Let  none  but  Baptists  enter  within  these 
walls, — an  admirable  expedient,  truly,  for  diffusing  the 
Baptist  sentiments;  about  as  rational  as  to  send  a  man 
from  London  to  Constantinople  to  study  the  evidences  of 
Christianity."! 

The  Baptists  assume  a  fearful  responsibility  when  they 
dispute  the  Christian  character  and  standing  of  other  evan- 
gelical churches,  and  a  greater  responsibility  when  they 
venture  to  repulse  them  from  the  Lord's  table  because  of  a 
want  of  conformity  to  their  "  faith  and  order,"  Such  a 
repulse  is  equivalent  to  a  positive  and  unequivocal  denial 
of  the  right  of  every  other  Christian  denomination  but  their 
own  to  the  blessings  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  equivalent 


Peter  i.  1.  f  Acts  xi.  17. 

+  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  228. 


MEMBERSHIP   IN    THE    BAPTIST    CHURCH.  163 


to  a  formal  shutting  out  of  all  other  Christians  from  the 
kingdom  of  grace  and  glorj,  equivalent  to  an  association  of 
all  other  true  believers  but  themselves  with  unbelievers  and 
the  heirs  of  perdition,  and  is,  in  fact,  so  far  as  they  can  do 
it,  rendering  absolutely  impossible  obedience  to  the  com- 
mand of  Christ,  ^^  Do  tJiis  in  rememhrance  of  me."  If  it 
were  proved  that  immersion  and  association  with  the  Bap- 
tist Church  are  essential  prerequisites  to  communion,  then 
the  Baptists  were  not  responsible  for  their  restriction  and 
exclusiveness,  and  the  responsibility  would  lie  upon  other 
churches  to  submit  to  immersion  and  join  the  Baptist 
Church,  But,  in  the  first  place,  it  has  never  been  proved 
that  immersion  is  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism, — but  the 
contrary;  in  the  second  place,  if  it  had  been  proved,  it  has 
never  been  proved  that  baptism  is  essentially  prerequisite 
to  communion ;  and,  in  the  third  place,  if  it  had  been  proved 
that  immersion  is  prerequisite  to  communion,  it  never  has 
been,  and  never  can  be,  proved  that  association  with  the 
Baptist  Church  is  prerequisite  to  communion  in  the  Baptist 
Church. 

All  that  is  required  as  essentially  prerequisite  to  com- 
munion is  the  evidence  of  Christian  character.  That  is, 
both  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  stand  upon  the  same 
ground  in  this  respect;  for  as  the  evidence  of  Christian 
character  in  adults  is  required  as  prerequisite  to  baptism, 
so  it  is  required  as  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  As, 
therefore,  the  Baptists  grant  baptism  to  all  who  give  this 
evidence,  they  are  bound  to  admit  to  the  communion  all 
who  give  ftie  same  evidence.  They  acknowledge  thousands 
who  have  never  been  immersed  to  be  Christians;  and  to 
these  they  should  no  more  deny  admission  to  the  Lord's 
table,  should  they  seek  to  be  admitted,  than  they  should 
have  denied  them  immersion  had  they  sought  to  be  baptized 
in  that  form.     Upon  the  ground  of  Christian  character  alone 


1G4  RtSTRTCTED    COMMUNION    UNREASONABLE. 


they  baptize  all  wlio  desire  it;  and  this  is  right;  and  so,, 
upon  the  same  ground,  they  should  admit  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  all  who  seek  it.  It  is  extravagant  to  demand 
immersion  also  as  preliminary  to  communion ;  but  when,  in 
addition  to  Christian  character  and  immersion,  memhership 
in  the  Baptist  Church  is  required  also  as  indispensable, 
extravagance  exceeds  all  bounds. 


CHAPTER  XL 

RESTRICTED    COMMUNION    UNREASONABLE. 

Not  to  confine  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  forms 
of  logical  precision,  a  few  solemn  and  vital  questions  are 
proposed. 

What  a  spectacle  have  we  in  a  restricted  communion  ! 
Shall  the  Father,  in  tender  mercy,  devise  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation, and,  through  a  long  series  of  centuries  and  sublime 
transactions,  in  prophecy  and  providence,  amid  the  ruins 
of  civil  governments  and  false  systems  of  religion  of  every 
form,  and  opposition  of  earth  and  hell,  preserve  his  word 
and  church  in  a  glorious  manner,  and  yet  one  branch  of 
that  church,  under  authority  of  that  word,  stand  out,  dis- 
owning, alienated,  sundered,  opposed,  without  communion, 
without  confidence,  without  religious  '^  dealings,"  and  play- 
ing the  Samaritan  toward  the  rest  of  the  church,  as  if  its 
title  to  heaven  were  founded  upon  uncompromising  and 
incessant  hostility  to  those  who  profess  ''one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism,  and  one  hope  of  their  calling"  ?  It  is 
unreasonable. 

Shall  the  Son  lay  aside  his  glory,  assume  the  nature  of 
man,  lead  a  suffering  life,  endure  the  wrath  of  God,  shed 


RESTRICTED   COMMUNION    UNREASONABLE.  165 


his  blood,  and  die  a  shameful  agonizing  death,  that  he  may 
lay  down  the  foundation  of  a  kingdom  that  shall  embrace 
all  nations,  the  foundation  of  a  church  that  shall  include 
every  people,  tribe,  tongue,  and  hiiidred  of  this  earth,  the 
one  kingdom,  the  one  church,  of  the  living  God, — oh, 
shall  the  Son  of  God  astonish  heaven  and  earth  with  the 
grandeur  of  his  scheme,  the  wonders  of  his  life,  the  prodigy 
of  his  death,  and  the  excellence  of  his  teaching, — shall  he 
devote  his  whole  life  to  unite  the  entire  human  race  to  God 
forever,  and  just  before  his  death  institute^  in  the  most 
solemn  and  impressive  manner,  an  ordinance, — his  own 
supper, — a  bond  of  union  of  all  his  people,  a  common  oath 
of  fealty  to  him,  a  means  of  reciprocal  benefit,  encourage- 
ment, and  love  between  all  the  members  of  his  body, — and 
yet  one  sect  assert  sole  right  to  that  sacramental  communion 
and  oath,  repel  those  who  differ  in  nothing  essential  to 
salvation,  in  nothing  wanting  in  moral  probity,  clash  harshly 
and  unkindly  with  the  rest  of  the  churches  of  Christ,  turn 
the  table  of  the  Lord  into  "  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock 
of  offence,'^  and  excite  the  bitter,  biting  taunt,  ^'  These 
Christians  have  just  religion  enough  to  form  a  faction  and 
hate  their  brethren  heartily"  ?  Is  this  reasonable  ?  It  is 
not  reasonable. 

Shall  the  Holy  Spirit  call  and  send  out  men  of  every 
order  of  mind  to  preach  the  word,  and  seal  their  commis- 
sion in  a'wakening  and  converting  men  of  every  rank  in 
humanity,  and  baptize  the  churches  with  power,  and  on 
them  stamp  the  seal  of  divine  approval,  and  adorn  them 
with  heavenly  virtues  and  graces,  and  excite  in  their  indi- 
vidual members  a  reciprocal  brotherly  love,  and  shield  them 
all  against  the  world's  invasions,  and  harmonize  them  in  tbe 
great  enterprise  of  the  world's  redemption,  and  yet  one  com- 
munion throw  up  around  itself  a  strong  rampart  of  sectari- 
anism which  other  deiiominations  sound  in  the  foith  of  Jesus 


166  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION    UNREASONABLE. 


are  not  permitted  to  pass,  exerting  to  the  utmost  the  baleful 
and  blasting  influence  of  sect  on  the  rest  of  the  '' kingdom 
of  God/'  exercising  caution,  management,  and  address  to 
break  down  other  altars  of  Christ  or  draw  away  worshippers 
from  them,  and  allowing  no  sacramental  fellowship  whatever 
to  other  children  of  God^  unless  they  dissolve  their  con- 
nection with  their  particular  churches  and  transfer  their 
precious  spiritual  interests  to  her  superintendence  ?  Is  this 
reasonable  ?     It  is  unreasonable. 

Shall  this  separate  sect  engage  with  other  churches  in 
public  worship  in  their  respective  churches,  in  singing  the 
praises  of  Zion,  in  public  prayer  with  their  members,  in 
exchanging  pulpits  with  their  ministers,  in  social  spiritual 
conversation  at  the  fireside,  in  the  sick-room,  at  the  death- 
bed, everywhere  but  at  the  communion-table,  and  yet  at  the 
communion-table  have  no  fellowship  at  all  with  them,  and 
spurn  them  away  as  disobedient  children,  unworthy  of  their 
sanctity  and  profession,  because  destitute  of  their  sectarian 
mark  and  different  from  them  in  tJccir  peculiarities  ?  Is 
this  reasonable  '(     It  is  unreasonable. 

Shall  this  sect  engage  with  other  churches  in  gracious 
and  powerful  revivals,  in  which  the  rumbling  among  the 
dry  bones  waxes  louder  and  louder,  in  which  multitudes 
press  into  the  kingdom  of  God  and  souls  by  families  and 
flocks  enter  into  the  fold  of  Christ,  in  which  the  vain,  the 
fashionable,  the  ga}^,  the  dissipated,  the  formal,  the  moral, 
the  rich,  the  poor,  and  those  who  ridiculed  vital  and  experi- 
mental godliness,  "  escape  for  their  lives"  and  "  flee  from 
the  wrath  to  come,''  and  the  most  solemn  spiritual  concern 
is  universal  among  persons  of  all  degrees,  tastes,  pursuits, 
and  ages?  and  yet, — but  look  at  one  of  these  revivals.  The 
town,  village,  or  country-place  seems  to  be  full  of  the 
presence,  love,  and  peace  of  God.  The  very  breezes  and 
sunlight  seem  to  come  from  a  pure  and  happy  world, — the 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION    UNREASONABLE.  167 


clouds  by  day  to  float  with  blessings  of  lieaveU;  and  the 
moon  and  stars  by  night  to  shine  with  the  softened  reflection 
of  the  Sun  of  righteousness.  The  stillness  of  the  air  is 
sacred,  and  the  singing  of  birds  is  sweet.  The  quiet  homes 
of  men  seem  to  be  enjoying  a  visit  from  the  Son  of  man, 
as  the  cottage  of  Bethany  did ;  and  peace  smiles  around  the 
happy  mansions,  parents  and  children  and  husbands  and 
wives  and  friends  rejoicing  in  the  converting  power  of  God. 
God  is  seen  in  his  sanctuary :  his  days  are  delightful  and 
his  tabernacle  amiable.  The  congregation  is  alive  and  eager 
to  catch  every  word  of  instruction  from  the  pulpit,  some 
weeping  in  penitential  sorrow,  others  in  earliest  spiritual 
love  and  joy,  and  others  in  sympathy  for  those  who  are 
impenitent  and  in  danger  of  dropping  into  hell.  The  public 
praise  is  simple,  lively,  harmonious,  and  exalted  almost  to 
seraphic  melody, — as  nearly  so  as  happy  mortals  can  employ 
in  the  service  of  God ;  at  least,  there  is  no  service  in  which 
the  hearts  of  good  men — old  and  young  Christians — har- 
monize so  sweetly  as  praise  in  a  revival,  all  singing  with 
unusual  animation  and  elevation  of  heart  and  voice,  the  very 
melody  giving  an  intense  charm  to  the  truth,  rendering 
duty  pleasant,  and  invigorating  for  other  services  of  the 
sanctuary.  The  prayers  are  simple,  earnest,  spiritual, 
special,  powerful,  uttered  as  if  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  sent 
up  to  heaven  to  be  answered, — and  answered  sometimes  iu 
a  signal  and  overwhelming  manner.  The  lukewarm  are 
greatly  enlivened  and  renerved.  Many  who  for  years  had 
been  depressed  with  doubts  and  fears  receive  a  more  plentiful 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  and  rejoice  in  clearer  discoveries  of 
God's  mercy  and  love.  Some  who  occasionally  had  been 
seeking  salvation  for  years,  and  who  had  often  obtained 
glimpses  of  pardon,  now  give  themselves  wholly  up  to  the 
work  of  seeking,  and,  in  a  powerful  conversion,  obtain  the 
fullest  assurances  of  pardon.       liackslidors  arc  reclaimed, 


168  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION    UNREASONABLE. 


and  rejoice  with  exceeding  joy.  Strangers  are  solemnly 
impressed  as  soon  as  they  enter  the  house  of  God,  and  many 
of  them  are  soon  weeping  in  the  congregation  or  at  the 
altar,  and  partake  of  the  gracious  feast,  and  go  away 
rejoicing.  More  seems  to  be  done  for  religion  in  one  week 
than  had  been  done  for  many  years  before.  The  "  Spirit 
of  grace"  sheds  abroad  his  holiest  influences;  the  Son  of 
God  spreads  his  mildest  radiance  around;  the  "love  of  the 
brethren'^  flows  from  heart  to  heart  till  the  swelling  tide 
overflows  all  bounds  in  streams  of  hallowed  transport,  and 
the  scene  compels  the  reverential  testimony,  "  How  vene- 
rable is  this  place  !  Surely  this  is  none  other  than  the 
house  of  God!  and  this  is  the  gate  of  heaven  !"  But  soon 
the  whole  scene  is  changed.  The  sacramental  bread  is  to 
be  broken.  All  these  evidences  of  the  divine  favor  and 
approval  are  at  once  swept  aside;  and  though  the  members 
of  this  one  separate  sect,  and  perhaps  their  pastor  with 
them,  took  this  "sweet  counsel"  with  this  sister-church, 
and  some  of  their  children,  parents,  husbands,  wives,  and 
friends  were  converted  at  her  altar,  and  many  of  the  con- 
verts became  the  rich  spoils^  of  the  common  labors,  lo !  a 
huge  stumbling-block,  an  inexpiable  transgression,  lies  in 
the  way  to  the  Lord's  table:  the  charm  is  dissolved;  the 
sectarian  suddenly  prevails  over  the  Christian;  "they 
only  follow  Christ ;"  they  do  not  follow  us:  they  are  not 
of  "owr  faith  and  order;"  they  are  a  "disorderly'^  church: 
communion  with  them  would  be  ^'  milair/ul;"  they  have 
never  been  "  immersed."  Is  this  reasonable  ?  It  is 
unreasonable.  It  is  a  reproach, — a  shame, — a  crime, — 
the  true  award  of  which,  sooner  or  later,  must  come,  in  this 
world,  or  when  God  arises  to  judgment. 

Once  more :  Shall  all  the  true  churches  derive  their 
spiritual  life  and  being  from  the  same  source,  be  en- 
couraged   by   the   same    gracious   word,   be    delivered    in 


RES'iraCTED    COMMUNION    UNREASONABLE.  169 


temptation,  in  trial,  in  danger,  by  the  same  gracious  hand, 
be  comforted  in  suffering,  in  losses,  in  bereavement,  by  the 
same  blessed  Spirit,  be  relieved  in  want,  in  poverty,  in  ne- 
cessities, by  the  same  special  providence,  be  strengthened 
in  misfortune,  in  calamity,  in  persecution,  by  the  same 
heavenly  Friend,  be  supported  in  sickness  and  in  death, 
and  led  along  the  valley  of  death,  by  the  same  heavenly 
Physician  and  Guide  ? — be  intrusted  with  the  same  great 
work  on  earth  and  called  to  the  same  great  reward  in 
heaven,  be  one  with  God  in  "time  and  eternity, — and  yet 
one  of  these  churches  bind  itself  around  as  with  a  chain 
of  iron,  to  hold  within  it  all  its  members,  and  surround 
itself  as  within  a  wall  of  adamant,  with  no  egress  nor  in- 
gress but  to  those  of  its  communion,  and  shut  up,  lock  up, 
the  sacramental  banquet  to  its  sole  use, — to  its  sole  use  hold 
a  solemn  feast  to  which  all  God's  people  have  an  equal 
right,  and  in  which  all  these  great  mercies  and  blessings 
and  hopes  are  gratefully  acknowledged,  and  the  death  that 
secures  them  all  is  reverently  commemorated?  Is  this 
reasonable  ?     It  is  unreasonable. 

Does  God  make  no  distinctions  between  his  churches  but 
as  they  obey  him  ?  No !  and  shall  one  of  these  churches 
presume  to  make  such  a  distinction  ?  Has  God  in  any  way 
evinced  that  the  exclusiveness  of  this  one  sect  is  right,  and 
the  opposite  practice  of  the  other  churches  is  wrong  ?  No ! 
but  quite  the  contrary,  if  their  <' fruits,"  and  the  concessions 
of  this  sect  itself,  are  to  be  received  as  proofs.  If  we  glory 
in  this,  it  is  in  the  Lord,  that  in  our  hearts  and  in  our 
lives  we  have  the  evidence  that  God  owns  us  as  his  people, 
and  we  never  will  exclude  from  his  table  any  who  we  be- 
lieve are  his  people. 

15 


170        CONSEQUENCES    OF   RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

CONSEQUENCES    OF   RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

What  is  right  in  itself  may  be  abused,  and  the  abuse 
becomes  an  evil.  Sacramental  communion  is  right  in  itself; 
but  when  it  is  made  restrictive  to  a  single  sect  of  the  true 
churches  it  becomes  a  subject  of  abuse,  and  the  evil  con- 
sequences are  many. 

1.  It  is  a  self-cxcommunication.  It  is  an  open  renuncia- 
tion, as  far  as  it  goes,  of  visible  fellowship  with  the  rest  of 
the  churches  of  Christ.  It  is  arrogantly  assuming  to  be 
the  only  true  church  of  Christ  on  earth.  It  is  a  deliberate, 
bold,  and  formal  protest  against  fellowship  with  the  rest  of 
the  universal  church  of  the  living  God  in  her  ordinances, 
— a  dissolution  of  the  "unity  of  the  Spirit"  under  the 
profession  of  "doing  God  service."  It  is  a  solemn  procla- 
mation to  the  world  that  the  claims  of  other  churches  are 
unfounded  and  imaginary,  and  that  the  manifestations  of 
divine  power,  grace,  love,  and  faithfulness  in  them  are 
spurious  and  delusory.  It  impeaches  the  professions  of 
other  churches,  accuses  their  intelligence  of  inconsistency, 
and  charges  their  piety  with  insincerity.  It  excludes  every 
description  of  Christians  who  are  not  of  our  sect.  It  is  a 
public  announcement  that  none  are  the  people  of  God  but 
the  members  of  our  church.  It  is  a  total  disregard  of  the 
terrible  word  of  the  Lord,  "Whoso  shall  oiFend  one  of  these 
little  ones  that  shall  believe  in  me,  it  were  better  for  him 
that  a  mill-stone  were  hanged  about  his  neck  and  that  he 
were  drowned  in  the  depth  of  the  sea."     Dr.  Howell  un- 


CONSEQUENCES    OF    RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.        171 


qualifiedly  proclaims,  "We  are  not  Protestants,  nor  Dis- 
senters, Lutherans,  Calvinists,  Arminians,  nor  Ptcformers, 
but  what  we  have  been  in  all  ages, — tlie  chvrch  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ/'*  This  assumption  is  endorsed  by  the  im- 
print of  the  "American  Baptist  Publication  Society.'' 

The  setting  up  of  a  separate  communion  on  reasons  found 
in  mere  forms  and  ceremonies,  or  in  difference  of  opinion 
and  practice  in  immaterial  matters,  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  would  have  been  considered  a  violation  of  the 
commandment  of  Christ,  a  conspiracy  against  the  unity  of 
his  kingdom,  an  attempt  to  lacerate  and  destroy  his  church, 
a  desecration  and  slander  of  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  an 
occasion  to  the  enemies  of  Christ  to  blaspheme,  and  a 
scandal  to  the  Christian  cause.  Though  these  serious 
offences  may  not  be  involved  in  the  intentions  of  the  Bap- 
tist Church  in  the  present  day,  yet  they  are  in  fact  the 
unavoidable  consequences  of  baptistical  restrictions  and 
exclusiveness.  Argue  and  explain  as  we  may, — give  to 
Christian  charity  and  forbearance  their  utmost  exercise, — 
the  Baptist  Church  is  a  schism, — not  entire,  but  partial^ 
and  to  a  serious  extent, — a  schism  to  the  whole  extent  of  the 
nature  and  importance  of  sacramental  communion.  Her 
exclusiveness  on  the  subject  of  baptism  might  be  regarded 
as  a  harmless,  at  least  tolerable,  error ;  but  when  it  is  made 
the  basis  of  a  separate  communion,  the  indispensable  pre- 
requisite to  sacramental  fellowship  with  the  church  of 
Christ,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  she  has  severed 
one  of  the  tenderest  and  most  sacred  ties  that  bind  the 
church  of  God  together.  Names,  influence,  learning,  use- 
fulness, numbers,  strength,  in  other  respects,  are  nothing 
on  this  one  point,  On  this  one  fundamental  point  the 
Baptist  Church  is  a  separate  sect.     This  cuts  deep.     And 

•:■■   Terms  of  Communion,  p.  251. 


172        CONSEQUENCES    OF   RESTRICTED    COMMUNtON. 


if  on  other  fundamental  points  the  Baptist  Churcli  were 
schismatical  as  in  this,  she  might  be  justly  excluded  from 
the  Christian  church.  Notwithstanding  the  divisions, 
rents,  wranglings,  and  bitterness  of  feeling  that  this  one 
evil  has  produced,  it  is  gratifying  to  know  that  matters 
are  no  worse,  and  that  enough  remains  essential  and  fun- 
damental in  the  Baptist  Church  as  a  ground  on  which  she 
may  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  Christian  church  and  an 
efficient  agency  in  the  world's  redemption.  She  might  be 
better  and  do  more;  and  so  might  every  other  Christian 
^church.  Though  she  excludes  us  from  the  table  of  the 
Lord,  we  are  ready  cheerfully  to  receive  and  welcome  her 
there.  England  and  Canada  encourage  us  to  hope  for  the 
best  in  the  United  States. 

The  self-excommunicating  spirit  and  practice  of  the  Bap- 
tist Church  as  regards  sacramental  communion  are  the  more 
remarkable  since,  as  we  have  seen,  she  practically  recog- 
nises Christian  fellowship  in  every  other  respect. 

Dr.  Howell,  ^^the  American  champion'^  of  the  cause, 
proudly  flaunts  the  sectarian  banner  to  the  breeze,  under  a 
proclamation  that  calls  Christendom  to  submission,  and  with 
an  inscription  of  profound  meaning  and  dazzling  glory:  — 
"  Our  whole  mighty  army,  bearing  the  banner  of  undeviating 
obedience  to  the  word  of  God,  the  icJwle  word  of  God,  and 
nothing  hut  the  word  of  God,  upon  the  ample  folds  of  which 
is  inscribed  ^one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,'  pre- 
sents an  unbroken  front,''* — a  banner  under  which  none 
are  permitted  to  enlist  but  strict  Baptists,  in  the  "whole 
array"  of  whom  we  look  in  vain  for  such  men  as  Bunyan, 
Hall,  Carson,  Foster,  Noel,  and  Koger  Williams, — the  last 
acknowledged  to  have  been  the  first  to  call  the  Baptists  to 
arms  in  the  little  gallant  company  of  ^^  eleven"  in  America 

'••■  Terms  of  Communion,  p.  16. 


CONSEQUENCES    OF   RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.        ITo 


in  1639  !  The  iuscription  on  the  banner  is  indeed  un- 
exceptionable;  but  the  design  is  sectarian,  for  the  "un- 
broken front"  is  sectarian,  and  every  soldier  marshalled 
under  it  is  a  separatist,  and  what  just  reason  there  is  for 
excluding  the  rest  of  the  Christian  army  it  is  impossible 
to  conceive.  It  had  been  well  for  Christianity  if  this  un- 
broken front  and  solid  square  had  long  ago  opened  into 
columns  wide  enough  to  admit  into  rank  millions  of  other 
loyal  and  valiant  soldiers,  who  are  recognised  as  fighting 
under  the  banner  of  the  "Captain  of  our  salvation,^'  but 
are  excluded  from  the  shadow  of  "the  ample  folds"  of  the 
Baptist  flag  !  A  close  inspection  of  this  baptistical  inscrip- 
tion will  convince  the  beholder  that  the  army  beneath  it 
is  parading  the  world  to  win  mankind  to  the  imaginary  im- 
portance of  the  mere  iw:)dc  of  a  sacramental  rite, — as  if  this 
were  "  the  word  of  God,  the  whole  word  of  God,  and  nothing 
hut  the  word  of  God,"  or  any  part  of  the  word  of  God  ! 

Is  this  the  guardian  and  transmitter  of  the  divine  revela- 
tions to  man?  Then  why  so  vacillating  in  its  utterances  of 
the  truth  as  it  has  come  down  to  us  from  former  ages,  and 
why  propose  to  bless  mankind  with  a  "  new  translation"  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures, — a  translation  that  would  require  an 
alteration  in  the  inscription  on  the  Baptist  banner,  by  sub- 
stituting "one  immersion^'  for  "one  baptism"?  The  spirit 
of  self-excommunication  displayed  in  strict  communion  is 
not  even  the  imitation  of  the  majesty  of  the  true  church — 
not  the  pure  gold  of  truth,  but  the  baser  metal  of  error, 
which  the  crucible  detects.  Holy  names  and  holy  words 
are  blasted  by  refusal  to  commune  with  those  whom  we 
acknowledge  to  be  Christians;  for  such  a  refusal  is  equi- 
valent to  a  denial  of  their  Christian  character,  whatever  may 
be  the  protestations  to  the  contrary.  It  is  in  deadly  hos- 
tility to  the  social  principle  of  religion.  It  excludes  utterly 
the  advantages  of  co-operation,  renders  impossible  the  dis- 


174        CONSEQUENCES    OF    IlESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 


charge  of  those  obh'gations  by  which  religious  society  is 
held  most  firmly  together,  and  impracticable  the  fulfilment 
of  those  proper  and  respective  duties  on  which  union  Ls 
most  securely  founded  and  perpetuated.  It  renders  the 
churches  unable  to  lighten  each  others'  burdens  by  mutual 
assistance.  Practically  carried  out  in  every  other  relation 
of  the  churches  to  each  other,  it  dissolves  the  bonds  of  the 
family  of  God,  and  the  church  is  destroyed;  for  renounce 
the  connections  which  religion  has  formed,  and  you  must 
be  renounced  also,  and  stand  an  isolated  individual,  or  an 
isolated  sect,  in  the  very  centre  of  Christendom, — and,  every 
other  church  pursuing  your  course,  union  is  at  an  end,  and 
the  church  is  no  more.  It  is  independence  at  the  expense 
of  all  the  blessings  of  union, — Arabian  freedom :  your 
"hand  against  every  man,  and  every  man's  hand  again.st" 
you.  Union  is  overlooked,  and  attention  is  fixed  only  on 
bonds  that  draw  a  single  denomination  into  closest  sectarian 
communion.  We  feel  instinctively  that  disaster  lurks  within 
it ;  we  are  disquieted  by  an  indefinable  apprehension  that 
danger  is  either  at  hand  or  not  far  remot<3 ;  and  we  look 
about  us  for  the  surest  means  of  self-defence, — conscious 
that  it  is  humiliating  for  any  portion  of  the  church  to  be 
beguiled  into  the  necessity  of  surrounding  itself  with  walls 
impassable  to  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world,  and  that  the 
rest  of  the  Christian  world  should  thereby  be  reduced  to 
the  necessity  of  providing  the  best  means  of  self-defence. 
If  concord  be  life,  how  can  discord  be  other  than  death?' 

'•'  Let  party  names  no  more 

The  Christian  world  o'erspread  : 
Gentile  and  Jew,  and  bond  and  free, 
Are  one  in  Christ  their  head." 

The  piety  and  zeal  of  the  Baptist  Church  alone  counter- 
balance the  evils  of  its  restrictions. 


CONSEQUENCES    OP   RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.        175 


2.  Restricted  communion  originates  in,  and  fosters,  the 
s^pirit  of  higotry.  Books  are  read,  studies  are  pursued, 
sermons  are  preached,  volumes  published,  conversations 
cherished,  faculties  employed,  and  time  expended,  for  this 
one  end, — scctairan  collision.  The  soul  is  narrowed  down 
and  contracted  within  the  interests  of  the  sect.  The  virtues 
and  graces  of  other  Christians  are  disparaged,  and  their 
failures  and  faults  aggravated  into  misdemeanors  and  crimes. 
As  the  spirit  of  the  sect  predominates,  the  spirit  of  the 
ffosjid  languishes.  As  regard  for  the  sect  increases,  concern 
for  the  common  faith,  the  general  good,  and  the  Redeemer's 
truth,  grace,  kingdom,  and  glory,  diminishes.  Zeal  for  the 
peculiarities  and  prosperity  of  the  sect  is  substituted  for 
personal  religion  and  the  worship  of  God  "in  spirit  and 
in  truth."  Sacrifices  are  consecrated  to  the  idol-god  of  the 
sect,  and  not  to  the  God  of  our  salvation.  Ilard-faced 
formality  is  substituted  for  living  godliness.  Greater  stress 
is  laid  upon  the  union  of  the  sect  than  union  with  the 
church  of  God.  A  favorite  system  grows  with  the  sect,  till, 
to  support  its  integrity,  it  is  necessary  to  supply  certain 
doctrines  by  inference,  and  illusory  deductions  from  the 
Scriptures  are  confounded  with  the  original  Scriptures  them- 
selves. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  prove  that  to  be  true  which  we  wish 
to  believe,  and  which  coincides  with  our  desires  and  habits. 
Possibility  strikes  us  then  with  the  force  of  demonstration, 
doubtful  evidences  are  conclusive,  and  plausible  arguments 
are  irresistible.  Rut  the  reverse  is  the  case  when  the  truth 
demands  the  recantation  of  our  faith  and  the  adoption  of 
that  which  we  do  nut  wish  to  be  true.  Then  the  claims  of 
truth  are  admitted  with  reluctance,  powerful  arguments  are 
received  as  plausible,  conclusive  evidences  are  entertained 
as  doubtful,  demonstration  is  reduced  to  po.ssibility,  and  the 
mind  is  dissatisfied  with  every  species  of  proof  that  can  be 


176       CONSEQUENCES   OF   RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 


produced.  In  either  case  the  exercise  of  candor  and  im- 
partialit}^  is  next  to  impossible.  What  allowance  infinite 
mercy  may  make  to  this  infirmity  of  human  nature  cannot 
be  defined ;  but  that  it  is  a  fit  occasion  on  which  to  appeal 
for  mercy  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But  bigotry  goes  beyond 
this.  It  is  blind  to  the  truth.  It  is  deaf  to  the  appeals 
of  reason.  It  is  insensible  to  the  force  of  argument.  It  is 
reckless  in  its  defence  of  party.  It  sentences  and  roots  out. 
It  invades  the  authority  and  province  of  the  Deity.  It 
assumes  the  office  of  an  executioner.  It  deprives  innocent 
Christians  of  the  means  of  salvation,  and  expels  them  from 
the  sanctuaries  of  religion.  Oh,  what  a  narrow  church 
does  "  the  general  assembly"  here  become,  and  in  what  a 
narrow  place  is  it  here  confined  !  The  gospel  invitation  is, 
Approach,  for  "yet  there  is  room;"  but  the  master  here 
commands,  "Hetire,  for  there  is  no  place  for  you." 

As  an  example  of  the  infatuation  and  bigotry  which  strict 
communion  engenders,  take  Dr.  Howell  himself,  one  of  the 
most  popular  writers  in  its  defence  : — "What  more  need  we 
say  firmly  to  settle  the  principles  of  our  faith  ?  In  relation 
to  so  plain  a  truth  it  is  difficult  involiintarihj  to  err.'* 
Again: — "x\re  they  [Pedobaptists]  conscientious?  We  are 
willing  to  admit  that  they  may  he."  Again  : — "The  former 
assumes  that,  as  the  Pedobaptist  sincereli/,  if  such  a  thing 
he  jpossihie,  believes  himself  to  be  baptized,"  &c.*  By-the- 
way,  did  it  never  occur  to  the  doctor  that  it  is  more  diffi- 
cult for  the  Pedobaptists  to  be  saved  at  all  than  for  them 
" involuntarily  to  err,"  or  be  "sincere  in  believing  them- 
selves to  be  baptized"  ?  If  "the  righteous"  Baptists  "are 
scarcely  saved,"  what  must  become  of  the  Pedobaptists  who 
can  scarcely  be  sincere  in  their  errors?  If  the  Baptists,  who 
are  as  certain  as  open  day  that    they  are  baptized,   just 

*  Terms  of  Comrauiiion,  pp.  56,  86,  106, 


CONSEQUENCES    OF   RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.        177 


reach  heayen,  what  must  become  of  the  Pedobaptists,  with 
whom  sincerity  in  believing  that  they  are  baptized  is 
scarcely  possible  ?  But  the  doctor  says,  as  we  have  seen  in 
another  part  of  his  treatise,  that  he  ^^  cherishes  for  the 
Pedobaptists,  as  the  people  of  God,  the  sincerest  affection, 
and  preaches,  and  prays,  and  labors,  and  consults,  and  co- 
operates, and  takes  i^Jeasure  in  being  associated  with  them 
'in  every  good  word  and  work/^'  What!  with  persons  of 
even  doiibtful  sincerity,  to  say  nothing  of  their  positive 
errors?  I  leave  the  reader  to  judge  in  which  of  these 
opinions  of  the  Pedobaptists  the  doctor  himself  is  sincere. 
If  in  the  latter,  then  he  is  justly  chargeable  with  bigotry 
in  the  former ;  if  in  the  former,  then  he  is  justly  chargeable 
with  insincerity  in  the  latter ;  and  insincerity,  in  this  case, 
can  be  ascribable  to  no  other  conceivable  source  but  the 
spirit  of  proselytism.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise  that 
he  should  have  expressed  the  following  opinion  of  Robert 
Hall : — "  It  is  a  matter  of  no  surprise  that  a  man  so  great  as 
Mr.  Hall,  with  principles  so  loose  and  contradictory,  should 
have  been  at  once  the  glory  and  the  shame,  the  boast  and 
the  blight,  of  the  Baptist  Church."*  The  ''blight"  arises 
from  another  quarter,  and  Mr.  Hall  refers  to  it: — "What  is 
the  consequence  which  must  be  expected  from  teaching  an 
illiterate  assembly  that  the  principal  design  of  their  union 
is  to  extend  the  practice  of  a  particular  ceremony,  but  to 
invest  it  with  an  undue  importance  in  their  eyes,  and,  by 
tempting  them  to  look  upon  themselves  as  Christians  of 
a  higher  order,  to  foster  an  overweening  self-conceit,  to 
generate  selfish  passions  and  encourage  ambitious  projects? 
Accustomed  to  give  themselves  a  decided  preference  above 
others,  to  treat  with  practical  contempt  the  religious  pre- 
tensions of  the  best  and  wisest  of  men,  and  to  live  in  an 


••■•  Terms  of  Communion,  p.  112. 


CONSEQUENCES    OF   RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 


element  of  separation  and  exclusion,  it  would  be  astonish- 
ing indeed  if  their  humility  were  not  impaired,  and  the 
more  delicate  sympathies  of  Christian  affection  almost  ex- 
tinguished."''' 

A  proselyting  and  uncharitable  spirit — which  is  but 
another  name  for  the  intolerance  of  bigotry — is  the  natural 
fruit  of  the  exclusive  principles  of  the  Baptist  Church. 
But  Mr.  Remington,  who  was  once  a  Methodist  and  became 
a  Baptist,  says,  "  The  practice  of  close  communion  does  not 
lead  to  bigotry :  if  it  did,  the  Baptists  would  have  been 
persecutors. '^f  And  to  this  Mr.  Smith,  who  was  once  a 
Baptist  and  became  a  Methodist,  replies,  '^But  he  [Mr. 
Bemington]  should  remember  that  the  spirit  of  persecution 
is  often  seen  in  other  forms  than  in  imprisonments,  racks, 
and  tortures,  and  that  it  will  be  quite  in  time  for  Baptists 
to  boast  in  this  matter  when  they  have  once  had  the  whip 
in  their  hands  and  refused  to  use  it.  He  would  do  well 
also  to  remember  the  saying  of  their  great  apostle,  Jlobert 
Hall, — viz.  :  That  their  views  of  the  communion  wei^e 
equally  intolerant  with  the  bigoted  principles  of  Eomanism  : 
that  the  one  was  ^  the  intolerance  of  power,  the  other  of 
weakness.'  That  they  do  lead  to  bigotry,  he  [Mr.  Reming- 
ton] has  himself  shown,  as  any  one  may  see  by  reading  his 
two  pamphlets, — the  first,  ^  Reasons  for  Becoming  a  Bap- 
tist,' written  when  he  had  just  embraced  these  sentiments, 
the  other,  '  Defence  of  Restricted  Communion,'  when  he 
had  not  only  embraced  the  theory  but  the  sj^irit  also, — the 
fruits  of  which  are  seen  in  the  gross  perversions  and  mis- 
representations of  the  discipline  of  a  church  to  which  he 
owed,  under  God,  the  salvation  of  his  soul."J  The  Baptists 
claim  descent  from  the  apostles,  and  affirm  that  the  apos- 


*  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  496.  f  Restricted  Communion. 

X  Reasons  for  Becoming  a  Methodist,  pp.  lo9,  ICO. 


CONSEQUENCES    OF    RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.        179 


tolic  churches  were  Baptist  j  and,  as  they  degenerated  ulti- 
mately into  papal  intolerance  and  bigotry,  who  can  say  that 
their  modern  restrictions  are  not  in  the  right  line  to  a  repe- 
tition of  papal  heresy  and  practice  ? 

3.  Kestricted  communion  casts  off  co-operation  with  the 
churches  of  Christ.  It  is  a  stranger  to  the  benign  laws  of 
mutual  benevolence.  It  is  the  parent  of  excitement,  aliena- 
tion, enmity,  animosity.  It  is  ever  receding  further  and 
further  from  other  churches,  inventing  new  points  of  dis- 
crepancy, creating  new  subjects  of  contention,  opening  new 
sources  of  crimination,  gathering  new  combustibles  for  party- 
passions,  presenting  new  obstacles  to  concord,  and  raising 
new  barriers  to  "  brotherly  love.''  "  My  church'^  absorbs 
so  much  anxiety  that  little  concern  is  felt  for  other 
churches, — the  cowmon  interest, — the  church  of  God. 
The  divine  rule — ''Whether  one  member  suffer,  all  the 
members  suffer  with  it,  or  one  member  be  honored,  all  the 
members  rejoice  with  it" — is  applicable  only  to  my  church. 
I  can  rejoice  that  the  '-word  of  the  Lord  has  free  course 
and  is  glorified"  in  my  church,  and  labor  most  zealously  for 
it ;  but  I  am  pained  to  hear  of  its  success  elsewhere,  and 
rejoiced  to  hear  that  it  languishes  elsewhere.  It  is  pleasant 
enough  to  draw  members  away  from  sister-churches,  and  it 
evinces  the  piety,  independence,  and  good  sense  of  those 
members  to  come ;  but  no  sympathy  is  felt  for  the  church 
that  suffers  the  loss.  It  is  agreeable  to  receive  accessions 
from  revivals  in  sister-churches  and  then  to  represent  the 
increase  as  a  proof  that  religion  is  flourishing  in  my  church : 
the  church  of  Christ  is  not  once  thought  of  but  to  ''bite 
and  devour."  Other  churches  are  left  to  stand  or  fall  by 
themselves,  provided  no  attack  be  made  by  the  enemy  upon 
some  common  interest  or  civil  privilege.  Other  matters  are 
"  none  of  their  business." 


180  ADVANTAGES    OF   OPEN   COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

ADVANTAGES   OF   OPEN   COMMUNION. 

The  advantages  of  open  communion  are  many  and  incal- 
culable, two  of  which  only  we  shall  mention. 

1.  It  would  contribute  to  the  interchange  of  friendly 
counsel  and  proj)er  admonition  among  the  churches.  One 
who  treats  me  with  coldness  and  indifference,  shuns  my 
company,  disparages  my  reputation,  excites  broils  in  my 
house  and  among  my  neighbors,  publishes  my  faults  to  the 
world,  and  endeavors  to  banish  me  from  society,  is  not  the 
man  to  expostulate  with  me  about  my  frailties  and  imper- 
fections or  admonish  me  about  my  errors.  But  the  man 
who  is  kind  and  sociable  in  his  intercourse  with  me — who 
is  found  in  my  house,  at  my  fireside,  at  my  table,  and  is  on 
terms  of  intimacy  and  friendship  with  me — is  the  man  who 
can  profit  me  by  his  admonitions  and  reproofs,  because  he 
has  proved  that  he  loves  me  and  has  a  sincere  concern  for 
my  improvement,  especially  when  I  know  that  our  enter- 
prises and  interests  are  essentially  interwoven  and  our  afiairs 
a  matter  of  common  concern.  In  this  way  how  might  the 
churches  be  instrumental  in  helping  one  another  to  correct 
deficiencies,  faults,  and  errors,  and  in  pointing  out  wherein 
each  ^' walks  not  uprightly  according  to  the  truth  of  the 
gospel"  !  We  might  then  converse  familiarly  and  calmly 
about  differences  in  doctrine  and  church-government,  and, 
"seeing  eye  to  eye,"  make  such  modifications  as  would 
remove  the  barriers  to  the  most  intimate  Christian  union 
and  fellowship.  Individual  Christians  and  ministers  in 
different  churchc;?  would  profit  by  friendly  counsel,  admo- 


ADVANTAGES    OF    OPEN    COMMUNION.  181 


nition,  and  encouragement.  The  noise  of  the  brawler  would 
be  hushed.  Ecclesiastical  tale-bearers  would  be  silenced. 
Busjbodies  would  lose  their  importance  and  be  reduced  to 
insignificance.  The  petty  hostilities  of  irritable  sectarians 
would  be  terminated.  Pharisaical  panegyrics,  now  so  often 
lavished  upon  ^^  our  church,''  would  be  discountenanced. 
The  detestable  spirit  of  proselytism  would  be  crushed.  The 
antipathies,  collisions,  and  wranglings  of  evangelical  churches 
would  soon  be  no  more.  And  in  the  deep  and  holy  calm 
that  would  ensue  might  be  heard  the  celestial  and  tender 
strains  of  that  ''wisdom  which  is  first  pure,  then  peaceaWe, 
gentle,  and  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  compassion  and  good 
fruits,  without  partiality  and  without  hypocrisy,"  by  which 
all  the  true  churches  in  the  world  might  be  made  a  niutual 
improvement  and  support. 

2.  It  would  strengthen  the  force  of  the  testimony  for 
Christ  among  men.  Let  it  never  be  assumed  again,  as  it 
has  been  by  some,  that  God's  own  people  can  maintain  a 
stronger  testimony  for  him  by  disunion  than  by  union. 
What  is  a  testimony  for  our  sects  and  peculiarities  worth  to 
God  and  his  truth  when  our  shibboleths,  symbols,  and  flags 
challenge  believers  to  battle  with  one  another,  and  our  forms 
are  the  wedges  that  split  the  church  of  Christ  to  pieces  ? 
What  could  more  enforce  the  church's  testimony  for  the 
truth  among  men,  or  more  efi"ectually  rout  the  whole  field 
of  infidelity  and  unbelief,  than  religion  reduced  to  a  prac- 
tical system  upon  the  broadest  Christian  fellowship,  on  which 
the  inferior  particulars  in  which  the  churches  vary  were 
lost  in  the  glory  of  the  higher  particulars  in  which  they 
agree  ?  Let  the  churches  confine  their  testimony  to  the 
substantial  truths  of  revelation  which  cement  the  founda- 
tions of  the  common  salvation,  and  no  longer  let  their 
creeds  clash  with  their  communion,  and  a  ground  is  formed 
for  Christian  confidence,  energy,  and  co-operation  which  the 

16 


182  OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED. 


powers  of  earth  and  hell  cannot  resist.  Let  the  spirit  of  ' 
Christian  fellowship  pervade  and  predominate  in  the  subor- 
dinate and  supreme  councils  of  the  churches,  and,  as  a 
central  fire,  it  will  soon  animate  the  whole  church  and  bow 
mankind  in  submission  and  fealty  at  the  feet  of  Christ. 
Though  we  cannot  rationally  believe  that  the  union  of  all 
the  churches  under  identically  the  same  doctrinal  and  eccle- 
siastical government  is  expedient  and  practicable  the  present 
hour,  because  there  are  opinions,  habits,  feelings,  and  forms 
which  must  be  reduced  to  some  common  standard  before  it 
can  be  wisely  and  safely  done,  yet  let  us  in  the  mean  time 
cultivate  the  most  friendly  Christian  intercourse  in  every 
possible  way,  as  opportunity  serves,  and  so  ripen  into 
mutual  alliances  for  mutual  benefit,  and  hasten  the  time 
when  'Hhe  Lord  shall  build  up  Zion  and  appear  to  men  in 
his  glory."     Thus  shall  we  live 

''  Citizens  of  ages  yet  to  come." 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

OBJECTIONS    TO    OPEN    COMMUNION    CONSIDERED. 

In  this  chapter  we  shall  give  attention  to  the  principal 
objections  to  open  communion. 

1.  '^God  may,  and  does,  hold  communion  with  those  with 
whom  we  may  not.'^  Very  well :  this  settles  the  question. 
God  is  with  ns.  Why  should  the  Baptists  lay  more  stress 
upon  the  mere  mode  of  baptism  than  God  himself  does  ? 
God  "hold  communion  with  those  with  whom"  his  people 
may  not !  What  better  evidence  can  there  be  of  one's  right 
to  the  table  of  the  Lord  than  that  the  Lord  is  with  him '/ 
John  Jones,  "a  bold  reprover  of  sin"  and  an  inflexible  non- 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  183 


•  conformist,  told  some  of  his  friends  who  were  for  separating 
from  their  brethren  because  they  were  not  altogether  of 
their  own  principles  and  entertained  different  sentiments 
about  non-essential  matters  that,  '■'■for  his  part,  he  would 
he  one  with  everyhody  that  was  one  with  Christ,"* — a  sen- 

V  tence  worthy  of  inscription  in  letters  of  gold  over  the  portals 
of  every  church  of  God  on  earth.  Henry  Jessey,  another 
non-conformist,  after  his  ejectment  turned  Baptist;  "and  it 
proved  no  small  honor  and  advantage  to  the  Baptists  to 

.  have  such  a  man  among  them.  But,  notwithstanding  his 
differing  from  his  brethren  in  this  or  any  other  point,'  he 
maintained  the  same  Christian  love  and  charity  to  all  saints 
as  before,  not  only  as  to  friendly  conversation,  but  also  in 
regard  to  church-communion,  and  took  great  pains  to  pro- 
mote the  same  catholic  spirit  among  others/^f  God  holds 
no  communion  with  an  unregenerate  man,  but  with  regene- 
rate men ;  and  all  regenerate  men,  by  virtue  of  union  with 
God,  have  already  spiritual  union  and  communion  with  all 
his  people  on  earth,  and  so  have  a  right  to  a  place  at  the 
Lord's  table  with  them.  "  That  which  we  have  seen  and 
heard  declare  we  unto  you,  that  ye  also  may  have  fellowship 
with  us;  and  truly  our  fellowship  is  with  the  Father  and 
with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ. '^  (1  John  i.  3.)  That  is,  as 
our  communion  with  God  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  others  to 
commune  with  us,  so  their  communion  with  God  is  a  suf- 
ficient reason  for  us  to  commune  with  them.  Then  it  is 
not  true  that  "we  may  not  hold  communion  with  thos^with 
whom  God  communes.''  As  soon  as  a  man  becomes  a 
Christian  he  has  a  right  to  fellowship  or  communion  with 
all  the  people  of  God. 

Matters  which  destroy  not  communion  with  Christ  cannot 
prevent  the  communion  of  Christians.     "  Receive  ye  one 

*  Xon-Conformist  Memoirs,  i.  340.  f  I^'^i-  P-  ^30. 


184  OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED. 


another,  as  Christ  also  received  us  to  the  glory  of  God." 
(Rom.  XV.  7.)  Here  Christ  is  the  example,  and  the  glory 
of  God  is  the  aim.  ''  Receive :"  this  is  the  command. 
The  church,  then,  that  sees  in  other  churches  or  in  indi- 
viduals the  evidence  of  Christ's  approbation  and  presence, 
and  yet  excludes  them  from  communion  with  her,  disregards 
the  example  of  Christ,  violates  his  command,  and  impedes 
the  glory  of  God.  It  is  no  atonement  for  these  offences 
for  a  church  to  boast  that  she  tc'dl  glorify  God  in  her  oiun 
loay.  God  can  be  glorified  no  otherwise  than  in  Ms  own 
way;  and  the  Scriptures  just  quoted  utterly  exclude  all 
separate  and  exclusive  communions  of  his  people  as  methods 
of  glorifying  God. 

Besides,  if  this  objection  is  valid,  it  is  subversive  of  all 
Christian  fellowship.  The  outward  walk  is  the  only  incon- 
testable evidence  of  right  to  Christian  fellowship  :  "  By  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them.''  If  such  an  evidence  as  this — 
the  external  effect  of  communion  with  God — is  not  a  suf- 
ficient warrant  for  reciprocal  communion  among  the  churches 
in  those  ordinances  appointed  expressly  for  their  spiritual 
benefit,  then  we  must  admit  persons  to  the  communion  on 
some  other  ground  than  that  prescribed  in  the  gospel ;  and 
then  we  cannot  know  whether  we  are  indeed  communing 
with  the  people  of  God  or  not;  and  so  Christian  communion 
would  be  impossible, — for  communion  upon  principles  of 
man's  making  is  not  Christian  communion,  but  profanity 
and  pollution.     Let  us  follow  the  divine  rule. 

Finally:  the  terms  of  the  objection  should  be  reversed. 
"We  should  hold  communion  with  those  with  whom  God 
holds  communion,  and  that  to  the  whole  extent  of  the 
evidence  which  they  give  of  such  communion.  If  we  walk 
with  those  who  ''walk  with  God,"  we  are  certainly  in  the 
way  to  heaven.  We  never  should  be  ashamed  to  be  found 
in  worship  or  sacramental  communion  with  those  whom  the 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  185 


God  of  our  salvation  deigns  to  own  and  bless  as  his  children. 
No  power  on  earth  is  authorized  to  hinder  me  from  going 
with  those  of  whom  God  is  the  Father,  and  to  whom  I  can 
say,  ''I  will  go  with  you,  for  God  is  with  you.''  And 
rather  tha-Q  commit  the  grievous  offence  of  shutting  out 
God  from  an  exclusive  communion-table  by  shutting  out  his 
people,  I  would  abandon  the  table  at  which  this  is  done.  I 
never  could  be  held  a  willing  captive  within  the  iron  wall, 
hemmed  round  by  ceremonial  forms  and  points  of  disagree- 
ment which  prevent  one  from  being  one  with  the  family 
of  Christ. 

Dr.  Howell  states  this  objection  in  another  form.  Says 
he,  ''Christ  may  bless  with  his  presence  and  favor  those 
who  disregard  his  injunctions,  but  he  has  not  covenanted  to 
do  so."*  This  is  a  new  interpretation  of  the  spirit  of  the 
gospel,  which  admits  of  blessing  those  who  disregard  its 
plain  letter,  while  it  is  inconceivable  on  what  ground  the 
spirit  and  letter  of  the  gospel  can  come  in  conflict.  It 
would  require  the  most  stupendous  miracle  and  a  revolution 
of  all  the  laws  of  reasoning  to  establish  the  validity  and 
propriety  of  this  novel  law  of  interpretation.  When  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel  is  once  satisfactorily  made  out,  it  may 
be  taken  for  granted  that  no  divine  injunction  exists,  or  can 
exist,  which  is  in  conflict  with  it;  and,  therefore,  if  Christ 
blesses  Pedobaptists,  their  involuntary  omission  of  baptism — 
if  they  have  omitted  it — cannot  be  construed  into  a  dis- 
regard of  the  injunction  respecting  that  ordinance;  and  so 
the  Baptists  do  violence  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  at  least, 
when  they  afl&rm  and  require  baptism  as  an  indispensable 
condition  of  communion.  No  argument  can  ever  amount 
to  the  smallest  degree  of  plausibility  that  Christ  blesses 
those  who  voluntarily  disregard  his  injunctions;  and,  if  an 


*'  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  42. 
16* 


186  OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED. 


exception  to  this  intuitive  truth  were  possible^  the  Baptists 
have  never  ventured  so  far  as  conscientiously  to  believe  that 
pious  Pedobaptists  are  guilty  of  this  offence.  They  cordially 
concede  that  pious  Pedobaptists  are  blessed  with  the  "  pre- 
sence and  favor"  of  Christ;  and  hence  it  is  a  matter  of 
surprise  that  they  should  inflexibly  maintain  that  the  former 
are  excluded  from  sacramental  communion  by  "the  injunc- 
tions" of  Christ.  If  it  were  possible  to  conceive  of  Christ 
blessing  those  who  voluntarily  disregard  his  injunctions,  it 
is  impossible  to  conceive  why  those  should  not  be  received 
to  sacramental  communion  who  voluntarily  disregard  the 
injunction  of  baptism;  or  if  it  be  a  fact  that  Christ  blesses 
those  who  involuntarily  neglect  that  ordinance,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  conceive  why  they  should  not  be  received  to  sacra- 
mental communion.  Man  receives  no  blessing  not  contained 
in  the  covenant,  expressed  or  implied ;  and  any  theory  in 
opposition  tt  this  is  one  of  the  flimsiest  fictions  of  the 
imagination.  Extreme  indeed  must  be  the  urgency  of  a 
cause  when  it  is  forced  to  adopt  an  expedient  of  this  sort 
to  support  it, — an  expedient  which,  while  it  makes  God 
"  the  author  of  confusion,"  is  extorted  by  the  piety  of  those 
who  make  him  "  the  God  of  peace." 

But  this  is  not  all.  Who  shall  say — and  what  is  it  to 
say — that  man  ever  receives  the  presence  and  favor  of 
Christ  outside  the  covenant  ?  The  Papal  Church  says  it, 
and  Dr.  Howell  repeats  it.  It  is  to  elevate  exterior  authority 
above  the  inspired  sense  of  the  Bible,  which  is  the  only  infal- 
lible standard  and  rule  of  faith.  AVhen  the  Papal  Church,  in 
conniption  and  arrogance,  transcended  the  plain  and  inspired 
sense  of  the  Scriptures,  the  necessity  arose  to  invent  a  new 
and  adequate  standard  to  support  the  authority  of  her  doc- 
trines and  rites;  and  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  the 
evangelical  piety  of  unbaptized  Christians  has  forced  upon 
the  Baptists  a  similar  necessity. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  187 


We  retort  the  prohibition  of  the  doctor  upon  him.  God's 
"  wisdom  forbids  us  to  assume  his  prerogative  and  place  our 
own  inventions  superior  to  his  hiws  in  the  government  of  his 
kingdom/"^  And  his  supposition,  ^'If  God  has  some 
secret  code  by  which  he  saves  those  who  habitually  violate 
his  revealed  will,  it  is  for  his  own  government,  not  ours/'f 
we  consign  to  the  fate  of  Romish  dogmas  of  a  similar  nature. 
A  position  that  is  guarded  against  all  means  of  proof  detects 
itself;  and  such  is  this.  It  bears  no  mark  of  truth,  but 
carries  with  it  the  irresistible  features  of  internal  error, 
which  no  sophism  can  conceal  and  no  dogmatism  support. 

But  the  doctrine  of  the  doctor  admits  of  another  appli- 
cation. What  blessing  inside  the  limits  of  the  covenant 
do  the  Baptists  receive  which  the  Pedobaptists  do  not 
receive  outside  the  covenant  ?  or  in  what  single  particular 
do  the  Baptists  display  any  superiority  in  piety  and  efficiency 
over  evangelical  Pedobaptists  ?  or  in  what  single  doctrine  or 
practice  are  they  entitled  to  peerless  honor  in  purity  except 
in  the  vindication  of  a  rite  supposed  by  them  to  be  neg- 
lected by  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world  ?  And  if  in  all 
these  respects  the  Pedobaptists  are  equal  to  the  Baptists, 
let  them  show  what  other  blessings  Christ  has  covenanted 
to  bestow.  Till  this  be  done,  facts  evince  either  that  the 
Baptists  are  outside  the  covenant  as  well  as  the  Pedobaptists, 
or  that  the  Pedobaptists  are  inside  the  covenant  as  well  as 
the  Baptists ;  and  so  in  the  former  case  neither  have  a  right 
to  communion,  and  in  the  latter  case  both  have  an  equal 
right  to  it. 

2.  "  Open  communion  compels  us  to  admit  all  that  pasa 
themselves  for  Christians,  and  thus  abolishes  the  distinction 
between  the  precious  and  the  vile.''^ 

First.    Are  any  of  the  'Wile'^  among  the  ''precious"  in 

■••■  Terras  of  Communion,  p.  88.  -\  Ibi<.l.  p.  109. 


188  OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED. 


restricted  communions  ?  If  so,  then  the  objection  is  an 
argument  against  restricted  communion. 

Secondly.  Restricted  communions  exclude  those  who  are 
achnoicledgcd  bj  the  objectors  themselves  to  be  Christians 
and  as  having  given  evidence  that  they  have  ''received 
Christ  Jesus  the  Lord.''  Open  communion  proposes  to 
welcome  and  encourage  all  who  evince  "  repentance  toward 
God  and  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ/'  and  to  repel 
and  exclude  all  that  are  aliens  and  enemies;  and  thus  the 
distinction  between  "the  precious  and  the  vile"  is  preserved. 
But  restricted  communions  go  further,  and  exclude  the 
"precious"  with  the  "vile."  The  "vile"  cannot  invalidate 
the  right  of  the  "  precious."  Sinners  cannot  set  aside  the 
rights  of  Christians.  No  power  on  earth  can  do  it.  Scrip- 
tural discipline  is  not  prostrated,  nor  is  the  house  of  God 
opened  to  utter  profanation,  by  admitting  the  "  precious"  to 
the  table  of  the  Lord  in  any  of  his  churches.  No  man  or 
church  is  able  to  "'  search  the  heart  and  try  the  reins  of  the 
children  of  men  :"  the  "  outward  appearance"  only  can 
guide,  and  by  this  every  church  must  be  guided.  Secret 
states  must  be  left  with  God. 

Thirdly.  There  never  has  been  a  church,  from  the  days 
of  the  apostles  to  the  present  hour,  in  which  the  "vile"  have 
not  existed;  and  hence,  if  the  objection  be  valid,  there 
should  not  have  been,  and  ought  not  now  to  be,  any  sacra- 
mental fellowship  between  Christians  of  different  names; 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the  church  is  a  fancy,  a 
deception.  The  objoction  subverts  the  foundation  of  the 
church  and  overturns  the  sacramental  table  at  a  single 
stroke.  It  cuts  up  the  communion  of  saints  by  the  roots. 
It  brings  the  purest  churches  under  the  ban  of  a  terrible 
and  desolating  proscription.  If  by  communing  with  a  par- 
ticular church  I  must  approbate  the  "vile"  within  her  fold, 
then  I  can  commune  with   no  church  on  earth,  not  even 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  189 


with  my  own,  for  in  all  the  "vile"  may  be  found;  ;;ud  so 
there  can  be  no  lawful  sacrameutal  fellowship  on  earth.  Do 
not  the  Baptists  find  the  'Wile"  at  home  as  well  as  abroad? 
Then  let  the  sacramental  table  be  le.uoved  from  the  Baptist 
Church,  or  the  objection  be  surrendered. 

True,  we  are  to  "keep  ourselves  pure/'  to  "have  no 
fellowship  with  unfruitful  works  of  darkness;"  to  ••come 
out  and  be  separate/'  to  "withdraw  from  every  brother 
that  walketh  disorderly/'  to  separate  from  "idolatry," — 
from  the  "world  which  lieth  in  wickedness," — and  specially 
from  the  "mother  of  harlots  and  abominations  of  the  earth:" 
all  this  is  plain  and  peremptory.  But  for  one  believer  to 
refuse  communion  with  another,  or  for  one  church  of  Christ 
to  refuse  communion  with  another, -because  there  the  "vile" 
are  associated  with  the  "precious/'  not  a  commandment  or 
an  example  can  be  found  in  the  Bible.  Andrew  Fuller, 
one  of  the  most  eminent  writers  and  preachers  in  the  Bap- 
tist Church  in  England,  observes,  in  a  "  Letter  to  a  Friend," 
"  It  was  no  reproach  to  Christ  and  his  apostles  to  have  had 
a  Judas  among  them,  though  he  was  a  thief,  so  long  as  his 
theft  was  not  manifest ;  but,  had  there  been  a  rule  laid  down 
that  covetousness  and  even  theft  should  be  no  har  to  com- 
munion, the  reproach  had  been  indelible."  If  the  Pedo- 
baptists  countenanced  in  their  communion  persons  heretical 
in  opinions,  profligate  in  character,  and  scandalous  in  life, 
the  objection  would  be  of  resistless  force;  but  this  is  not  so, 
and  the  objection  fails. 

Besides,  these  persons  did  not  appear  profane  when  they 
were  received  into  the  church ;  and,  since  they  have  been 
found  out  to  be  inconsistent  and  irregular,  they  are  retained 
in  order  to  their  repentance  and  amendment, — which  God 
will  allow  a  church  to  do  for  a  period ;  while  he  threatens 
to  cut  off  the  church  that  fails  to  cut  off  incorrigible  offend- 
ers, as  he  did  in  the  case  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  then  the  two 


190  OBJECTIONS   CONSIDERED. 


tribes  of  Israel,  and  afterward  all  the  apostolic  churches 
without  exception. 

3.  "  Unbaptized  persons  were  not  admitted  in  the 
apostles'  days.  Pedobaptists,  therefore,  ought  not  to  be 
admitted  now."*  In  the  first  place,  this  is  assuming  that 
pedobaptism  is  not  apostolic  baptism,— which  is  begging  the 
wliole  question  of  baptism.  Secondly.  Granting  that  the 
unbaptized  were  not  admitted  in  the  apostles'  days,  were 
the  excluded  such  as  the  Baptists  now  exclude  ?  Infidel 
Jews,  idolatrous  heathen,  and  the  disobedient  and  rebellious, 
were  excluded  by  the  apostles;  but  it  never  can  be  proved 
that  the  apostles  would  have  excluded  believing,  pious, 
obedient,  and  fiiithful  Christians,  such  as  the  Baptists  con- 
cede the  Pedobaptists  to  be.  It  is  unreasonable  to  assume 
that  they  would  have  done  it.  Would  the  apostles  have 
exchanged  pulpits  with  unbaptized  Christian  ministers, 
united  with  them  in  prayer  and  other  services  of  church- 
worship,  recognised  them  as  members  of  the  household  of 
faith,  admitted  that  they  had  "a  right  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  did  right  in  partaking  of  it  in  their  own 
churches,"  and  engaged  with  them  in  the  discharge  of 
every  other  Christian  duty,  and  yet  excluded  them  from 
the  sacramental  table  ?  Would  the  apostles  have  beheld 
unbaptized  Christian  ministers  preaching  the  same  doctrines 
that  they  received  from  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
taught  themselves,  and  their  preaching  accompanied  with 
the  unction,  power,  and  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  superior 
to  their  own,  and  their  labors  crowned  beyond  all  com- 
parison with  greater  success  than  their  own,  and  thousands 
upon  thousands  of  happy  converts  from  all  classes  of  society 
crowding  into  unbaptized  churches,  while  but  hundreds 
were  obtained  as  seals  to  the  apostolic  ministry? — would 

•■■  R.  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  p.  241. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  191 


the  apostles  have  beheld  unbaptized  churches  far  out- 
numbering their  own,  and  powerful  and  overwhelming 
revivals  breaking  out  in  them  on  every  hand  and  wherever 
their  ministers  came,  and  thousands  upon  thousands  of  their 
converts  pressing  into  and  increasing  the  strength  of  the 
apostolic  churches  ? — would  the  apostles  have  beheld  unbap- 
tized churches  engaged  in  the  noblest  enterprises  to  advance 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  at  home  and  abroad,  far  and  near, 
and  everywhere  accessible,  organizing  powerful  religious 
societies,  such  as  Bible,  Missionary,  Sunday-school,  and 
Tract  societies,  to  disseminate  evangelical  truth,  and  out- 
stripping in  the  aggregate  the  apostles  themselves  in  those 
matters  ? — would  the  apostles  have  beheld  the  salutary 
influence  of  these  unbaptized  churches  extending  into  every 
department  of  society,  modifying  human  laws,  tastes,  man- 
ners, habits,  and  customs  on  every  hand,  and  insinuating  a 
sanctifying  leaven  into  the  most  powerful  empires  of  earth, 
and  depositing  the  elements  of  freedom,  stability,  and  pros- 
perity in  the  very  fundamental  laws  and  institutions  of  the 
nations    that   received    and   tolerated    them  ? — would   the 

^^postles  have  beheld  these  unbaptized  ministers  and  their 
churches  enduring  as  great  hardships,  leading  as  holy,  con- 
sistent lives,  and  dying  as  triumphant  deaths,  as  the  apostles 
themselves  and  their  churches  displayed  ? — would  the 
apostles,  in  a  word,  have  beheld  themselves  comparatively 
a  small  sect  in  the  very  centre  of  a  thousand  evangelical 
churches  owned  and  blessed  of  Grod  in  a  wonderful  manner 
on  every  hand  and  helping  mightily  even  the  apostolic 
churches  in  the  world's  redemption, — and  yet,  after  all  this, 
refuse  to  receive  them  to  the  Lord's  table  because  they  were 
not  immersedj  or,  if  immersed,  because  they  were  not  of 
their  **  faith  and  order"  ?     The  very  idea  is  preposterous. 

.  Why,  the  apostles  would  have  come  to  a  dead  stand  :  if  they 
were  Baptists,  they  would  have  been  confounded.     They 


192  OBJECTIONS   CONSIDERED. 


would  have  inquired,  '^What  docs  all  this  mean?  Have 
we  not  received  from  the  Master  that  we  are  to  admit  none 
to  his  church  or  his  supper,  on  any  terms,  by  any  means, 
and  under  any  circumstances,  but  those  who  have  been 
immersed  and  are  of  our  faith  and  order?  Surely  we  must 
have  misunderstood  the  Lord.  See,  here  before  our  eyes, 
all  around  us,  are  unbaptized  ministers  and  churches  excel- 
ling us  in  laboring  for  God.  God,  of  a  truth,  is  with  them 
mightily.  The  Holy  Ghost  has  at  least  baptized  them 
with  '  jire.^  They  yield  us  the  accession  of  thousands  of 
unquestionable  conversions;  and  yet  they  are  themselves 
spreading  on  every  hand.  It  is  wonderful.  There  is  a 
mistake  somewhere.  Tie  must  be  wrong,  for  they  give  no 
evidence  that  tliey  are  wrong.  The  facts  are  against  us. 
They  give  better  evidence  that  they  are  the  true  apostles 
and  tlieir  churches  the  true  churches  than  we  do  that  we 
are  such.  TFe  mus,t  either  deny  the  truth  of  the  gospel  or 
change  our  ground.  We  must  acknowledge  that  we  have 
either  misunderstood  the  ^  commission'  and  instructions 
of  the  Lord,  or  that  his  commission  and  instructions  to  us 
were  of  no  essential  importance.  It  cannot  be  the  latter : 
it  must  be  the  former.  "\Ye  must  convene  a  council  and 
change  our  ground  on  two  essential  points.  We  must  abro- 
gate the  essential  importance  of  immersion  and  annul  the 
condition  of  membership  in  churches  of  our  ^  faith  and 
order'  as  prerequisite  to  sacramental  communion,  and  so 
break  down  the  wall  of  close  communion  that  separates  our 
brethren  from  us ;  for  they  give  better  evidence  than  we  do 
that  they  understand  the  true  and  proper  meaning  of  the 
'  commission'  and  instructions  of  our  common  Lord."  Thus, 
in  the  appeal  to  what  the  practice  of  the  apostles  would 
have  been  in  a  similar  case,  we  turn  the  tables  upon  the 
Baptists.  Make  the  cases  parallel,  and  the  Baptists  must 
abandon  their  ground.     Make  the  cases  parallel,  or  withdraw 


OBJECTIONS   CONSIDERED.  193 


the  objection.  Either  class  pious  Peclobaptists  with  infidel 
Jews,  idolatrous  heathen,  faithless,  disobedient  professors, 
and  the  non-professing  world, — in  a  word,  exclude  them 
from  the  Christian  church  altogether, — or  withdraw  the 
appeal  to  the  practice  of  the  apostles  for  the  course  jou 
pursue.  There  is  no  alternative.  You  must  do  one  or  the 
other.  The  objection  forces  you  to  the  one;  the  reply 
drives  you  to  the  other.  Abandon  the  objection,  or  main- 
tain it. 

Alas,  your  leaders  are  resolved  to  maintain  this  objection 
at  all  hazards.  I  quote  from  Mr.  Whitney,  and  give  his 
comments.  "  Just  look  for  a  moment,'^  says  he,  ^^  at  the 
language  of  those  whom  you  point  to  as  the  defenders  of 
your  practice.  ^All  Pedobaptists  are,  however  ignorantly, 
openli/  disohedient  to  a  command  of  Christ.'*  ^  They  refuse 
suhjection  to  Christ  and  violate  the  laws  of  his  house. 'f 
^  The  essential  preliminaries  heing  disregarded,  they  cannot 
approach  the  table  of  the  Lord. 'J  'Their  reception  by  us 
would  on  our  part  amount  to  a  conspiraei/  with  them  in 
their  design  to  overthrow  the  law  of  God,  and  render  us 
not  Christian  communicants,  but  partners  in  their  rehellion 
against  the  authority  of  the  Siq>re7ne  Legislator.'^  Evan- 
gelical and  pious  Pedobaptists  disobedient  and  rebellious  ! 
Holy  men  like  Owen  and  Baxter,  Doddridge  and  Scott, 
Chalmers  and  McCheyne,  Edwards  and  Davies,  Whitefiekl 
and  Tennent,  Brainard  and  Payson,  openly  disobedient, 
rebels  against  the  authority  of  God,  refusing  subjection  to 
Christ,  and  designing  to  overthrow  his  laws !  Would  to 
God  we  had  more  such,  or  that  all  who  make  these  modest 
charges  and  consider  themselves  obedient  above  others  would 


*  Curtis  on  Commanion,  p.  2i3. 
f  Kinghoru's  Terms  of  Communion. 
I  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  178.  ^  Ibid.  p.  87. 

17 


194  OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED. 


only  supply  their  place  !  But  where  does  such  language 
place  all  Pedobaptists  ?  Out  of  '  the  church  which  is 
suhjcct  unto  Christ/  among  the  godless,  whose  sentence,  as 
written  out  by  the  pen  of  inspiration,  is,  ^  Unto  them  that 
are  contentious  and  oheij  not  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteous- 
ness, indignation  and  wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish/  It 
not  only  throws  them  out  of  the  visible  church,  but  out  of 
the  invisible.  Can  you  be  surprised  to  hear  close-com- 
munionists  denounced  as  illiberal  and  bigoted  when  they 
make  use  of  such  language  and  practise  a  course  which,  if 
consistently  interpreted,  necessarily  leads  to  the  unchurch- 
ing and  condemnation  of  everybody  but  themselves  ?  And 
to  refuse  to  commune  with  such  men  because  they  will  not 
sin'  against  their  souls  is  to  act  more  in  accordance  with  the 
genius  of  Hildebrand  than  the  spirit  of  Christ."'^ 

Mr.  Whitney  might  have  gone  further,  and  retorted  upon 
Curtis,  Kinghorn,  and  Howell,  and  reminded  them  that  they 
and  their  brethren  exchange  pulpits  with  these  "  openly 
disobedient"  men,  '^conspirators,'^  and  '^ rebels"  against  the 
government  of  God,  and  engage  with  them  in  the  solemn 
mockeries  of  church-worship,  "when  occasion  offers,"  and 
concede  that  they  have  "a  right"  to  take  the  oath  of  con- 
spiracy at  the  Lord's  table,  and  bid  them  God-speed  in  their 
horrid  '^  design  to  overthrow  the  law  of  God"  !  If  the  ob- 
jection supports  close  communion,  it  presupposes  a  coalition 
of  close-communionists  with  open-communionists  against 
the  authority  of  God.  If  such  a  coalition  does  not  exist, — 
and  it  does  not, — then  the  objection  falls  to  the  ground,  and 
the  appeal  to  what  would  have  been  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  in  the  case  fails. 

4.   ''To  be  separated  from  our   brethren  at  the  Lord's 

■'■•  Whitney  oa  Open  Cominuuion,  pp.  131-133.  It  is  gratifying  to  see 
a  Baptist  administering  such  just  rebuke  to  his  brethren. 


OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED.  195 


table  is  more  painful  to  us  than  to  them ;  but  our  love  for 
tbem,  as  well  as  our  loyalty  to  Jesus,  demands  of  us  this 
self-denial."'^'  The  Baptists  have  a  singular  aptitude  to  con- 
nect a  cross  with  the  discharge  of  many  religious  duties. 
At  one  time  immersion  is  a  cross,  especially  in  freezing 
weather  and  to  delicate  females,  when  in  fact  it  is  only 
repulsive  to  man's  natural  instincts  and  to  woman's  native 
modesty.  At  another  time  the  dying  Christian  who  can- 
not be  immersed,  and  so  cannot  have  the  communion,  must 
"submit  with  pious  resignation"  to  the  necessity;  and  "it 
is  a  very  great  attainment  to  submit  patiently  to  suffer  the 
will  of  God,  at  such  a  time,  concerning  us."f  And  now  it 
is  a  cross  to  decline  communion  with  those  who  are  "knit 
together  with  us  by  a  union  most  sweet  and  dear  and 
imperishable,"  whom  "neither  walls,  nor  mountains,  nor 
oceans,  nor  ages,  can  separate. "J  We  repeat,  this  sort  of 
"self-denial"  is  a  singular  demand  upon  piety, — especially, 
too,  when  Dr.  Howell  admits  that  "all  the  Lord's  children 
have  an  undoubted  right  to  his  table,"  The  pious  heart 
indeed  shrinks  from  communing  with  the  ungodly  at  the 
Lord's  table;  and  it  is  no  self-denial  to  do  this.  But  how 
a  Christian  can  feel  the  prompting  of  "  self-denial"  in  de- 
clining to  commune  with  his  brethren  in  the  sacred  supper 
is  wholly  inexplicable,  except  upon  the  ground  of  perverted 
moral  sensibility.  I  cannot  understand  how  it  is  "painful" 
to  unite  with  another  in  the  discharge  of  a  duty  equally 
imposed  upon  both.  How  "loyalty  to  Jesus"  can  be  im- 
peached by  uniting  with  his  subjects  in  taking  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  him  is  another  mystery,  inexplicable  except 
upon  the  ground  that  I  am  controlled  rather  by  the  laws  of 


*  R.  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  p.  2?>9. 
t  Remington  ou  Restricted  Communion,  p.  72. 
X   R.  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  p.  220. 


196  obje:;ttons  considered. 


an  improper  religious  education  tlian  an  enlightened  judg- 
ment of  the  laws  of  Christ's  spiritual  kingdom.  Christians 
often  confound  the  peculiar  claims  of  party  with  the  in- 
exorable claims  of  the  divine  law,  and  so  are  "loyal"  to 
their  sect  and  disloyal  to  God.  An  enlightened  conscience 
would  free  many  a  sincere  Christian  from  painful  mortifica- 
tion and  useless  self-denial  in  a  multitude  of  instances. 
Certain  it  is  that  pious  Pedobaptists  have  no  compunctions 
of  conscience  in  obeying  the  command,  '^Do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  me,"  nor  would  tliey  have  any,  nor  feel  it  to  be 
a  case  of  '-self-denial,"  nor  disloyal  to  sect  or  to  Jesus,  to 
unite  with  pious  Baptists  in  sacramental  communion.  It 
iS;  however,  to  be  deeply  regretted  that  pious  Baptists  are 
governed  by  different  views  of  duty;  and  we  most  sincerely 
return  the  pious  lamentation  of  Mr.  Fuller,  ''the  more  we 
admire  their  characters,  so  much  more  do  we  lament  that  they 
throw  their  influence  on  the  side  of  error;"  though  we  drop 
his  appended  phrase, — ''and  continue  in  disobedience.""^ 
We  sincerely  regret  that,  while  it  almost  "breaks"  Mr. 
Fuller's  ^^ heart''  because  we  charge  "inconsistency"  upon 
him,  his  conscience  should  dictate  that  it  "would  not  only 
be  inconsistency  but  a  deliberate  sin  in  him"-|-  to  commune 
with  us;  for  a  pious  man,  with  his  heart  and  conscience  in 
conflict,  cannot  well  be  at  ease.  There  certainly  is  to  every 
pious  heart  an  attraction  toward  those  on  whom  the  sun- 
shine of  God's  countenance  rests;  and  to  such  a  heart  it 
does  seem  that  it  ought  to  be  not  only  "painful"  but  re- 
morseful to  repel  or  neglect  them  :  it  is  paradoxical,  to  say 
the  least,  that  both  should  be  right.  It  is  a  singular 
government  that  yields  joy  and  comfort  to  the  Pedobaptists 
in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  at  the  same  time 
imposes  upon  the  Baptists  the  "painful"  duty  of  expelling 
them  from  that  hallowed  service, — singular  that  God  should 

*  R.  Fuller  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  p.  239.        f  I^''^-  P-  ^■^^- 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  197 


own  that  service  as  ''loyal/'  and  yet  some  of  his  children 
pronounce  it  ^'disloyal"  and  "continued  disobedience/' — 
singular,  above  all,  that  a  service  should  be  conceded  by 
one  party  to  be  "  right"  when  performed  by  the  other  party, 
and  yet  '^  a  deliberate  sin"  when  united  in  by  both  parties ! 
Our  appeal,  then,  is  to  God,  with  the  concessions  of  the 
Baptists,  and  not  to  the  standard  by  which  the  Baptists 
determine  their  obligations, — assured  that  we  shall  not  run 
the  hazard  of  incurring  the  divine  displeasure  by  any  arbi- 
trary assumptions  of  exclusive  privileges. 

"I  have  known, '^  says  Robert  Hall,  '^more  instances  than 
one  of  good  men  complaining  of  the  uneasiness — I  might 
say  the  anguish — they  felt  on  those  occasions,  when  they 
witnessed  some  of  their  most  intimate  friends,  persons  of 
exalted  piety,  compelled,  after  joining  in  the  other  branches 
of  worship,  to  withdraw  from  the  Lord's  table,  as  though 
'they  had  no  part  or  lot  in  the  matter.'"* 

5.  ''As  no  one  who  was  not  circumcised  was  permitted 
to  partake  of  the  paschal  feast,  so  no  unbaptized  person  is 
admissible  to  the  eucharist."  Our  reply  is  brief.  Circum- 
cision is  expressly  enjoined  as  indispensably  preliminary  to 
the  passover,  and  the  neglect  of  circumcision  incurred  the 
sentence  of  excision,  exclusion  from  the  privileges  and 
blessings  of  the  everlasting  covenant :  "  that  soul  shall  be 
cut  off  from  the  people.''  But  no  such  dependence  of  the 
eucharist  upon  baptism  is  stated  in  Scripture;  and  the 
Baptists  themselves  admit  that  pious  Pedobaptists  already 
enjoy  all  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  new  and  everlasting 
covenant.  If  such  a  dependence  does  exist,  how  did  it 
happen  that  pious  Pedobaptists  obtained  all  the  spiritual 
blessings  of  the  covenant,  and  why  are  they  not  "  cut  off" 
by  God  himself  "from  his  people"  ?  That  such  a  neces- 
sary dependence  does  not  exist  is  evident  from  the  single 

»  Hnll'.s  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  ?,2?,. 
17'* 


198  OBJECTIOXS    CONSIDERED. 


consideration  that  pious  Pedobaptists  give  as  good  evidence 
that  they  are  already  admitted  by  God  himself  to  a  parti- 
cipation of  the  blessings  of  the  everlasting  covenant  as  the 
Baptists  themselves  can  furnish.  Besides,  if  there  be  any 
force  in  this  analogical  argument  of  the  Baptists,  it  must 
revert  to  the  Pedobaptists ;  for  then  baptism  comes  in  the 
place  of  circumcision, — which  is  the  fact;  and  then  all  pious 
Pedobaptists  are  already  entitled  to  the  communion,  and 
the  Baptists  are  wrong  in  opposing  infant  baptism. 

6.  "When  we  receive/'  says  Dr.  Howell,  "the  Lord's 
Supper  with  Pedobaptists,  we  either  actually  abandon,  or 
practically  falsify,  all  oui  principles  in  relation  to  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  gospel.  Is  it  possible  they  [the  Pedobaptists] 
can  wish  us  to  admit  them  to  communion  with  us,  or  desire 
us  to  sit  down  with  them  without  acknowledging  the  validity 
of  their  baptism  ?  Read  all  their  books  on  this  subject,  and 
the  conviction  cannot  be  resisted  that  they  esteem  our  com- 
munion with  them  as  worth  nothing  except  as  an  acknow- 
ledgment of  their  baptism  or  a  renunciation  of  our  own."* 
The  consequences  stated  in  this  objection  are  not  neces- 
sarily involved  in  mixed  communion,  for  the  Baptists  might 
still  maintain  their  '^principles  in  relation  to  the  sacra- 
ments," and,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  might  still  main- 
tain the  necessary  dependence  of  the  sacraments  upon  each 
other,  regarding  their  Pedobaptist  brethren  as  innocently, 
because  involuntarily,  erring  in  the  matter  of  baptism. 
Besides,  it  is  not  true  that  the  Pedobaptists  require  the 
recognition  of  the  validity  of  their  baptism  in  order  to 
mixed  communion  :  believing  that  their  baptism  is  valid, 
they  do  not  require  the  concession  of  the  Baptists  to 
strengthen  its  validity.  Nor  is  it  true  that  the  Pedobaptists 
would  '' esteem"  mixed    communion   ''as  worth  nothing" 


Term?  of  rommimion,  pp.  119.  120. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  199 


without  a  renunciation  on  the  part  of  the  Baptists  of  their 
baptism,  for  they  might  still  maintain  and  practise  their 
doctrine  of  exclusive  immersion.  Finally,  it  is  believed 
that  all  in  strict  Baptist  churches,  in  England  and  America, 
are  not  of  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Howell. 

7.  "  Baptists  cannot  commune  with  Pedobaptists,  because 
they  administer  baptism  for  illegal  purposes  and  attach  to 
it  an  unreasonable  and  unscriptural  degree  of  efficacy  and 
importance.'^*  This  author,  on  same  page,  observes, 
'^  Pedobaptists  of  all  classes  regard  baptism  as  at  least 
synonymous  with  regeneration."  We  need  scarcely  stop  to 
remind  the  reader  that  neither  of  these  statements  is  true 
respecting  evangelical  Pedobaptists,  and  that  this  author 
attempts,  it  is  feared,  to  practise  a  pious  fraud  upon  those 
of  his  readers  who  may  fail  to  detect  his  sophism,  by  which 
he  wishes  to  show  that  the  Baptists  "  are  the  only  people 
who  do  not  unduly  exalt  the  sacraments  of  the  gospel,"f 
and  therefore  they  should  not  commune  sacramentally  with 
any  other  sect  of  Christians.  Communion  should  be  prac- 
tised with  none  but  evangelical  churches;  and  we  deny  that 
the  evangelical  churches  '^  attach  an  unreasonable  and 
unscriptural  degree  of  efficacy  and  importance"  to  baptism. 
After  having  labored  to  prove  baptismal  regeneration  upon 
Pedobaptists,  (including  Papists  and  Protestants,)  whole 
and  entire,  this  author  himself  concedes,  "  The  evangelical 
portion  of  them  will,  I  doubt  not,  earnestly  protest  that  thei/ 
do  not  believe  that  baptism  has  any  regenerating  or  saving 
influence  whatever." J  As  to  the  ^'creeds  and  standards" 
of  the  evangelical  Pedobaptists,  it  is  almost  needless  to  say 
that  this  author  either  misunderstands  or  has  misrepresented 
them,  and  that  "the  antagonistic  influence  of  Baptist  prin- 


«  Howell  on  Terms  of  Communion,  p.  ISO. 
t  Ibid.  p.  181.  +11.1(1.  p.  201. 


200  OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED. 


ciples"  has  rather  been  a  barrier  to  the  progress  of  the 
gospel  than  a  restraint  upon  the  ^^  extravagance'^  of  the 
evangelical  churches.  The  truth  is,  evangelical  Pedobap- 
tists  attach  neither  more  nor  less  importance  and  efficacy  to 
baptism  than  the  Baptists  do;  and  so  this  objection  is  irre- 
levant. 

8.  "  Baptists  cannot  unite  with  Pedobaptists  in  sacra- 
mental communion,  because  they  attach  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  an  unreasonable  and  unscriptural  importance  and 
efficacy."*  This  is  but  the  repetition  of  the  preceding 
pious  fraud,  which  is  a  favorite  weapon  with  unfair  religious 
controversialists.  To  use  the  language  of  this  author,  this 
proposition  "  is  extravagant  and  ridiculous."  For  he  main- 
tains— what  no  one  denies — that  in  the  early  ages  of  the 
church  in/ant  haptism  and  infant  communion  were  con- 
nected ',  but  this  ridiculous  absurdity  is  not  now  practised 
even  in  the  Romish  Church,  and  so  does  not  now  exist  as 
a  barrier  to  communion  with  that  church.  Indeed,  this 
author  says,  "  The  Papists  and  all  the  Protestants  who  have 
been  under  this  influence  have  long  since  abolished  infant 
communion. "f  Why  then  refer  to  it  as  a  reason  for  not 
communing  with  evangelical  Pedobaptist  churches,  in  which 
it  never  existed  in  doctrine  or  practice  ?  All  arguments  to 
prove  that  evangelical  Pedobaptists  attach  more  or  less 
importance  to  the  Lord's  Supper  than  the  Scriptures  justify 
or  evangelical  Baptists  admit  are  mere  assumptions;  and 
so,  this  objection  failing,  the  Baptists  may  commune  with 
their  Pedobaptist  brethren  without  "  insincerity,  hypocrisy, 
or  sin."J 

9.  '^  The  policy  of  free  communion  is  disastrous  to  the 
church. "§      The  progressive  prosperity  of  the  evangelical 


■•■■  Howell  on  Terms  of  Cotnmunion,  p.  20.3,  t  Ibid.  p.  208. 

Jlbid.  p.  213.  ^Ibid.  p.  215. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  201 


Pedobaptii^t  cliurches  at  once  refutes  tliis  obje-olion ;  and  it 
can  never  be  proved  that  the  prosperity  of  the  Baptist 
Church  is  the  legitimate  result  of  strict  communion.  On 
the  contrary,  the  probability  is  that  the  prosperity  of  the 
Baptist  Church  is  ascribable  mainly  to  the  adoption  and 
application  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  and  principles  of 
salvation  which  constitute  the  creeds  and  enter  into  the 
measures  and  practices  of  the  evangelical  Pedobaptist 
churches ;  and  so  long  as  this  is  true  of  the  Baptist  Church 
it  must  continue,  in  the  nature  of  things,  to  prosper,  not- 
withstanding the  restraints  and  impediments  involved  in 
exclusive  immersion  and  strict  communion.  The  main- 
tenance of  these  two  dogmas  may  perpetuate  the  distinct- 
ness of  the  Baptist  Church  as  a  sect,  but  can  never  tend 
to  promote  its  prosperity.  The  prosperity  of  the  Baptist 
Church  lies  in  other  causes, — causes  common  to  other  evan- 
gelical churches, — which  are  the  common  ground  of  sacra- 
mental communion  between  them,  and  on  which  they  are 
entitled  consequently  to  communion  with  the  Baptist 
Church,  Nor  does  it  follow  that  free  communion  would  be 
^'  disastrous'^  to  the  Baptist  Church,  since  it  need  not  abate 
at  all  in  its  piety  or  zeal,  or  abandon  any  of  its  truly  evan- 
gelical principles  and  doctrines,  nor  relinquish  immersion, 
which  it  regards  as  so  essential, ''  solemn,  and  impressive. '^ 
The  Baptist  Church,  like  the  Methodist  Church,  carries 
the  gospel  chiefly  to  the  middling  classes  of  social  society ; 
and  certainly  it  can  never  be  pretended  that  men  are  con- 
verted through  the  instrumentality  of  the  sacraments. 
Thus,  the  Baptist  Church  might  practise  free  communion, 
and  yet  preach  the  saving  doctrines  of  the  gospel  with 
undiminished  zeal  and  success.  Then  if  the  tide  of  pros- 
perity turn  in  favor  of  the  Baptist  Church,  let  it  be  so ;  or 
if  it  turn  more  strongly  in  favor  of  other  evangelical 
churches,  let  it  be  so :  in  either  case  more  souls  are  saved 


202  OBJECTIONS    COXSIDKRED. 


and  the  prosperity  of  Christianity  is  more  rapidly  promoted 
among  men.  One  great  barrier  to  evangelical  union  and 
harmony  in  efibrts  and  enterprises  to  evangelize  the  wurld 
is  broken  down,  and  the  strength  and  time  formerly 
expended  in  wasting  each  others'  energies  in  mutual  strifes 
and  impeding  each  others'  progress  are  employed  in  mutual 
helps  and  in  combined  labors  to  accelerate  the  final  triumph 
of  the  gospel  in  the  world's  redemption.  Our  petty  differ- 
ences and  intense  solicitudes  for  our  own  arks  and  sects  are 
humiliating.  This  author  observes: — ''Christian  com- 
muTiion,  in  its  largest  sense,  extends  to  all  the  modes  by 
which  believers  recognise  each  other  as  members  of  a 
common  head.  Every  expression  of  fraternal  regard,  every 
participation  in  the  enjoyments  of  social  worship,  every 
instance  of  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  exerted  in  prayer  and 
supplication  or  in  acts  of  Christian  sympathy  and  friend- 
ship, truly  belongs  to  the  communion  of  saints.''*  One 
would  imagine  that  this  is  the  language  of  a  liberal  evan- 
gelical Pedobaptist,  if  he  were  not  told  that  a  strict  Baptist 
is  the  author  of  it;  while  it  is  surprising  that  all  this  can  be 
done,  and  is  done,  by  strict  Baptists,  who  all  the  time 
maintain  their  tenet  of  exclusive  immersion,  and  yet  cannot 
go  further,  and  engage  in  free  communion  without  aban- 
doning that  characteristic  tenet. 

10.  It  is  assumed  by  Professor  Curtis  that  open  com- 
munion involves  ''  a  full  and  perfect  membership  in  any 
numbers,  with  an  equal  right  to  vote,  to  elect  ofl&cers,  or 
become  ofl&cers  themselves,  as  well  as  to  preach  and  adminis- 
ter ordinances  only  as  they  conscientiously  believed  cor- 
rect.""!" To  this  objection  we  shall  give  particular  attention, 
because  it  is  founded  on  a  serious  misapprehension  of  the 
rights  implied  in  sacramental  communion. 

*  Howell  on  Terms  of  Communion,  p.  229. 
f  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  p.  287. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  203 


1.  No  cliurcli  has  a  right  to  require  that  as  a  term  of 
church-membership  which  is  not  essential  to  salvation  •  and 
it  is  not  essential  to  salvation  that  a  person  belong  to  this  or 
that  particular  church;  but  every  one  has  a  right  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  who  has  performed  that  which  is  essential 
to  salvation;  and  therefore  a  person  may  and  should  be 
received  to  sacramental  communion  with  a  particular  church 
without  becoming  a  member  of  that  church. 

2.  Every  one  who  is  a  member  of  the  spiritual  or  uni- 
versal church  of  Christ  has  a  right  to  the  visible  ordinances 
of  the  church;  for  the  visible  ordinances  of  the  church 
belong  to  the  spiritual  or  universal  church  of  Christ,  and 
consequently  to  no  particular  church  more  than  to  another, 
unless  we  can  prove  the  absurdity  that  what  belongs  to  the 
whole  does  not  belong  to  a  part  of  the  spiritual  church.. 
Hence  it  is  evident  that  sacramental  communion  with  one 
particular  church  does  not  necessarily  involve  membership 
in  that  particular  church,  since  the  communicant  is  already 
a  member  of  another  particular  church  which  has  an  equal 
right  to  sacramental  communion  with  the  former. 

3.  The  objection  is  in  fact  a  question  of  church-govern- 
ment, and  as  such  we  shall  now  mere  particularly  consider 
it.  Human  nature  is  suhstantialli/  the  same  always  and 
everywhere ;  and,  corresponding  to  this  nature,  the  gospel 
is  always  and  everywhere  essentially  the  same.  But  circinn- 
.^(aiiti'aU^  man  is  infinitely  various,  and  hence  differences 
may  exist  in  the  external  governments  of  particular 
churches,  provided  nothing  be  done  in  conflict  with  the 
immutable  and  essential  principles  of  the  gospel.  As  man 
is  substantially  the  same  alw;iys  and  everywhere,  certain 
ordinances  and  institutions  of  the  gospel,  applicable  alone 
to  man's  substantial  nature,  are  enjoined  as  universally  and 
immutably  binding,  such  as  preaching,  the  sacraments, 
thanksgiving,   prayer,   and    praise.       In   other  words,   the 


204  OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED. 


spiritual  church  of  Christ  is  one,  as  the  human  race  is  one, 
but  composed  of  many  societies,  all  branches  of  the  same 
body,  and  governed  by  the  same  fundamental  spiritual  laws, 
and  having  the  same  right  to  the  same  immutable  ordi- 
nances and  institutions,  though  under  different  but  har- 
monious external  governments.  There  are  two  elements 
essential  to  the  being  of  the  spiritual  universal  church  of 
Christ:  the  one  doctrine,  and  always  the  same;  the  other 
spiritual,  and  always  active  and  operative ;  and  where  these 
exist  in  a  particular  church,  its  external  government,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  is  sufficiently  in  harmony  with  the 
principles  of  the  gospel  to  entitle  it  to  recognition  as  a 
branch  of  the  universal  church  of  Christ ;  for  every  essence 
has  a  development  peculiarly  its  own  ;  and  so  Christianity, 
in  doctrine  and  life,  has  its  own  development,  and  is  inde- 
pendent of  every  form  of  church-government  in  itself  not 
contrary  to  the  gospel.  It  is  thus  that  churches  with 
different  ecclesiastical  governments,  but  having  the  same 
evangelical  doctrine  and  life,  are  members  of  the  same  great 
body, — the  universal  church;  and  so  each  has  the  same 
right  to  the  same  ordinances  and  institutions  of  Christianity, 
and  are  bound  to  observe  all,  because  they  are  equally  bind- 
ing upon  all. 

Thus,  while  particular  churches  having  the  same  doctrine 
and  life  are  but  members  of  the  same  body,  or  parts  of  the 
same  great  whole,  and  so  in  doctrine  and  life  are  not  inde- 
pendent of  each  other,  in  external  government  and  regula- 
tions they  are  different,  are  independent  of  each  other,  and 
cannot  make  laws  for  or  interfere  with  each  other,  any 
more  than  the  church  can  make  laws  for  or  interfere  with 
the  state,  or  the  state  make  laws  for  or  interfere  with  the 
church,  but  each  particular  church  can  regulate  its  govern- 
ment and  discipline  according  to  the  general  principles 
revealed  and  provided  for  every  case  that  can  occur  in  the 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  205 


exigencies  of  time  and   place.      From  these   fundamental 
principles  several  consequences  follow. 

If  a  member  leaves  one  particular  cliurch  for  another,  he 
remains  still  in  the  one  church  of  Christ;  but  if  he  joins 
not  another  particular  church  he  leaves  the  one  church 
altogether;  and  yet  no  one  is  justified  in  renouncing  the 
communion  to  which  he  belongs  from  motives  of  taste,  con- 
venience, or  worldly  policy,  much  less  because  it  contains 
in  it  some  who  are  corrupt,  or  against  whom  prejudices, 
however  strong,  are  entertained ;  though  he  may  renounce 
a  communion  if  it  be  destitute  of  spiritual  life  and  teach 
false  doctrine,  for  such  a  communion  is  no  part  of  the 
church  of  Christ.  On  the  same  ground,  no  Christian  is 
justified  in  neglecting  any  of  the  ordinances  and  institutions 
of  Christianity  because  some  in  the  church  to  which  he 
belongs  are  corrupt,  or  entertain  for  him  prejudices,  how- 
ever strong  or  malignant :  he  is  under  prior  and  abiding 
obligation  to  Christ,  and  he  cannot  neglect  his  duty  to  him, 
however  others  may  neglect  it.  Nor  is  any  member  of 
a  particular  church  justified  in  declining  communion  with 
another  particular  church  which  he  believes  is  a  part  of 
Christ's  church,  since  Christ  is  the  head  of  all  the  parts 
of  his  church.  And  so  the  ordinations  and  ministrations 
of  one  particular  church  are  as  valid  as  those  of  another 
particular  church,  because  Christ  is  the  head  of  all  the 
particular  churches  comprehended  in  the  visible  church, 
and  is  the  head  of  every  spiritual  member  and  minister  of 
every  particular  church,  and  rules  and  supports  every  par- 
ticular church  in  every  place.  Xot  that  the  minister  of 
one  particular  church  is  invested  with  authority  to  vote,  or 
sit  in  trial,  or  administer  ecclesiastical  government,  in  an- 
other particular  church,  or  engage  in  framing  rules  and 
regulations  for  the  government  of  another  particular  church ; 
for  in  these  matters  each  particular  church  may  adopt  its 

18 


206  OBJECTIONS   CONSIDERED. 


own  government  and  discipline,  so  it  be  done  in  accordance 
with  the  general  and  immutable  principles  provided  in  the 
gospel  for  the  direction  of  those  in  authority  in  the  church. 
Right  to  commune  with  another  church  does  not  involve 
right  to  engage  with  that  church  in  ecclesiastical  matters, 
such  as  legislation  for  the  peace  and  order  of  its  members, 
regulation  of  its  worship,  superintendence  of  its  interests, 
voting  in  church-trials,  &c.  In  these  matters  each  church 
has  its  own  government,  rules,  and  regulations.  And  there- 
fore none  of  these  are  invaded  or  sacrificed  by  admitting 
members  of  other  Christian  churches  to  the  Lord's  table, 
since  the  Lord's  table  is  the  common  property  of  all  Chris- 
tian churches.  And  as  a  properly-accredited  minister  of 
one  particular  church  is  the  minister  of  the  whole  church, 
as  the  preacher  of  the  truth,  his  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments and  his  right  to  communion  should  be  recognised 
as  valid  as  are  the  administration  and  rights  of  the  minister 
in  any  other  particular  church.  And  so  private  members 
of  one  particular  church  are  not  invested  with  authority  to 
vote,  or  sit  in  trial,  or  engage  in  any  manner  in  framing  or 
administering  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  another  par- 
ticular church;  for,  as  above,  each  particular  church  may 
adopt  and  administer  its  own  government.  In  this  matter, 
under  the  restriction  and  direction  stated,  each  church  may 
exercise  its  own  discretion  and  freedom.  But  in  the  matter 
of  the  immutable  ordinances  and  institutions  of  Christianity 
no  particular  church  can  exclude  the  members  of  another 
particular  church,  for  all  have  an  equal  right  to  them,  and 
here  rights  are  not  left  to  the  discretion  and  freedom  of  any 
particular  church.  For  example, — which  is  the  matter  in 
hand, — the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  standing  ordinance  of  Chris- 
tianity, of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation,  that  is,  equally 
and  perpetually  binding  upon  all  the  churches  of  Christ, 
which  neither  originated  with  nor  can  be  appropriated  to 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  207 


the  use  and  benefit  of  any  particular  cliurch  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  any  other  particular  church ;  and  so,  while  it  is  the 
common  and  inalienable  right  of  every  particular  church, 
reciprocal  communion  between  the  churches  does  not  secure 
to  those  communing  ''an  equal  right  to  vote,  elect  officers, 
or  become  officers,^'  or  engage  in  any  manner  in  the  ec- 
clesiastical government  of  the  churches  respectively.  In 
mixed  communion  all  enjoy  an  inalienable  right  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  each  particular  church  retaining  at  the  same 
time  its  right  under  the  gospel  to  provide  and  administer 
its  own  external  government  according  to  the  gospel.  This 
is  the  course  pursued  by  the  English  Baptists,  as  is  ad- 
mitted by  Professor  Curtis  himself: — ''Most  of  the  English 
[Baptist]  churches  now  do  not  allow  Pedobaptists  to  become 
fully  members  of  the  church  in  the  sense  of  voting  or 
having  any  share  in  the  government,  hut  simply  to  com- 
mune.''^ This  is  as  it  should  be  in  America  and  every- 
where else  in  the  Christian  world. 

11.  Allied  to  this  is  another  objection  to  open  commu- 
nion urged  by  the  same  author: — "The  visible  churches 
are  also  independent  bodies,  just  as  all  the  families  in  a 
community  are  independent  in  their  household  arrange- 
ments. Hence  it  does  not  follow  that,  because  an  individual 
is  entitled  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of  a  home  in  his  own 
family,  he  is  therefore  at  liberty  to  claim  all  the  same 
prerogatives  in  any  other,  as  he  may  see  fit  to  demand  them. 
So  must  it  ever  be,  measurably,  in  well-regulated  Christian 
churches.^'f  The  analogy  is  radically  defective.  The  Lord's 
Supper  is  the  "privilege''  or  "prerogative"  of  every  par- 
ticular church,  without  distinction ;  and  every  true  believer 
has  an  inalienable  right  to  "home"  anywhere  with  his 
Father's  family.  Admit  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the 
peculiar  privilege  or  prerogative  of  a  particular  church,  and 

*  Progress  of  Baptist  iPrineiples,  p.  289.  f  Ibid.  p.  103. 


208  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


it  becomos  at  once  the  foundation  of  a  sect;  and  this  is  the 
assumption  and  the  practice  of  strict  Baptists,  whatever 
may  be  their  concessions.  Arguments  drawn  from  social 
life  in  favor  of  strict  communion  do  not  touch  the  question 
in  controversy,  though  the  intercourse,  generally  practised  in 
well-regulated  conventional  life,  might  be  turned  with  great 
force  against  the  practice  of  strict  communion  in  the  Bap- 
tist Church,  and  put  to  the  blush  the  exclusiveness  of  that 
church, — since  members  of  different  '^families  in  a  com- 
munity," though  ^'independent  in  their  household  arrange- 
ments," are  often  found  in  friendly  intercourse  in  the  same 
house  and  around  the  same  social  table. 


CHAPTER  XY. 

EMINENT    BAPTISTS    IN    FAVOR   OF    OPEN    COMMUNION. 

Some  of  the  ^'noblest  spirits  and  brightest  lights"  in  the 
Baptist  Church,  whose  names  are  fadeless  in  the  annals 
of  Christianity,  deny  that  baptism  is  an  indispensable  pre- 
requisite to  sacramental  communion.  John  Bunyan,  the 
celebrated  author  of  ^'Pilgrim's  Progress,"  was  a  Baptist; 
and  he  opposed  this  dogma  of  his  church.  '^The  ingenious 
author  of  the  Pilgrim's  Progress  was  one  of  the  first  in 
this  kingdom  [England]  who  dared  to  assert  that  the  want 
of  baptism  is  no  bar  to  communion,  and  acted  accordingly."* 
Roger  Williams,  immortal  in  the  history  of  American  inde- 
pendence, and  the  founder  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  America, 
and  who  withdrew  from  the  church  he  founded,  was  iu 
favor  of  open  communion.     Robert  Hall,  one  of  the  most 

*  Booth's  Vinclicalion  of  the  Baptists,  Bap.  Lib.,  vol.  i.  p.  49. 


EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUMON    BAPTISTS.  209 


I 


elegant  and  eloquent  writers  in  the  Baptist  or  any  other 
church,  was  in  favor  of  open  communion,  and  has  done 
more,  probably,  than  any  other  man,  to  break  down  the 
opposite  practice  in  his  own  church.  John  Foster,  one  of 
the  most  profound  and  accomplished  writers  of  his  age,  a 
Baptist,  is  at  the  side  of  Robert  Hall.  The  two  Haldanes, 
of  Scotland,  are  of  the  same  class.  Alexander  Carson,  the 
author  of  the  best  defence  that  has  ever  appeared  in  favor 
of  immersion,  and  the  great  authority  of  the  Baptists  for 
the  original  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  haptizo,  was  in 
favor  of  open  communion.  Baptist  W.  Xoel,  who  withdrew 
from  the  Church  of  England  and  became  a  Baptist,  has 
published,  in  his  work  on  Christian  baptism,  pp.  287-301, 
^^ reasons  for  free  communion.^'  To  the  writings  of  some 
of  these,  and  of  others,  we  shall  refer  in  this  chapter, 
making  extracts  from  their  works  which  are  not  in  the 
possession  of  the  people  generally. 

We  begin  with  John  Bunyan.  We  make  several  extracts 
from  a  treatise  written  by  him,  entitled  ^'A  Reason  for  my 
Practice  in  Worship,'' 

"Let  the  cry  be  never  so  loud,  Christ,  Order,  The  Rule, 
The  Command,  or  the  like,  carnahty  is  at  the  bottom;  and 
they  are  but  babes  that  do  it;  their  zeal  is  but  a  puff. 
(1  Cor.  iv.  6.)  And  observe  it,  the  great  division  at 
Corinth  was  helped  forward  by  water-baptism.  This  the 
apostle  intimates  by  'Were  ye  b^aptized  in  the  name  of 
Paul?'  Ah,  brethren,  carnal  Christians  with  outward 
circumstances  will,  if  they  be  let  alone,  make  sad  work  in 
the  churches  of  Christ  against  the  spiritual  growth  of  the 
same.  'But  I  thank  God,'  saith  Paul,  'that  I  baptized 
none  of  you,'  &c.  Not  but  that  it  was  then  an  ordinance 
of  God,  but  they  abused  it  in  making  parties  thereby.  '  I 
baptized  none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gains,  and  the 
household  of  Stephanus,  men  of  note  among  the  brethren, 


10  EMINENT   OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


men  of  good  judgment,  and  reverenced  by  the  rest :  they 
can  tell  you  I  intended  not  to  make  a  party  to  myself 
thereby.  Besides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any 
other.'  By  this  negligent  relating  of  whom  were  baptized 
by  him,  he  showeth  that  he  made  no  such  matter  of  baptism 
as  some  in  these  days  do;  nay,  that  he  made  no  matter  at 
all  thereof  with  respect  to  church-communion;  for  if  he  did 
not  heed  who  himself  had  baptized,  he  much  less  heeded 
who  were  baptized  by  others.  But  if  baptism  had  been 
the  initiating  or  entering  ordinance,  and  so  appointed  of 
God,  no  doubt  he  had  made  more  conscience  thereof  than  so 
lightly  to  pass  it  overT  ^  For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize, 
but  to  preach  the  gospel.'  The  gospel,  then,  may  be 
effectually  preached,  and  yet  baptism  neither  administered 
nor  mentioned, — the  gospel  being  good  tidings  to  sinners 
upon  the  account  of  free  grace  through  Christ ;  but  baptism, 
with  things  of  like  nature,  are  duties  enjoined  such  a  people 
who  received  the  gospel  before.  I  speak  not  this  because 
I  would  teach  men  to  break  the  least  of  the  commandments 
of  God,  but  to  persuade  my  brethren  of  the  baptized  way 
not  to  hold  too  much  thereupon,  not  to  make  it  an  essential 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  nor  yet  of  communion  of  saints. 
'  He  sent  me  not  to  baptize.'  These  words  are  spoken  with 
a  holy  indignation  against  them  that  abuse  this  ordinance 
of  Christ." 

Again  : — '^  But  to  exclude  Christians  from  church-com- 
munion, and  to  debar  them  their  heaven-born  privileges  for 
the  want  of  that  which  yet  God  never  made  a  wall  of 
division  between  us :  1.  This  looks  too  like  a  spirit  of 
persecution.  2.  It  respecteth'  more  a  form  than  the  spirit 
and  power  of  godliness.  3.  This  is  to  make  laws  where 
God  hath  made  none,  and  to  be  wise  above  what  is  writ- 
ten,— contrary  to  God's  word  and  our  own  principles.  4. 
It  is  a  directing  of  the  Spirit  of  God.      5.   It  bindeth  all 


EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS.  211 


men's  faith  and  light  to  mine  opinion.  6.  It  taketh  away 
the  children's  bread.  7.  It  withdraweth  from  them  the 
increase  of  faith.  8.  It  tendeth  to  harden  the  hearts  of  the 
wicked.  9.  It  tendeth  to  make  wicked  the  hearts  of  weak 
Christians.  10.  It  selteth  open  a  door  to  all  temptations. 
11.  It  tempteth  the  devil  to  fall  upon  those  that  are  alone 
and  have  none  to  help  them.  12.  It  is  the  nursery  of  all 
vain  jaoglings,  backbitings,  and  strangeness  among  the 
Christians.  13.  It  occasioneth  the  world  to  reproach  us. 
14.  It  holdeth  staggering  consciences  in  doubt  of  the  right 
way  of  the  Lord.  15.  It  giveth  occasion  to  many  to'  turn 
aside  to  most  dangerous  heresies.  16.  It  abuseth  the  holy 
Scriptures;  it  wresteth  God's  ordinances  out  of  their  place. 
17.  It  is  a  prop  to  Antichrist.  18.  Shall  I  add^  is  it  not 
that  which  greatly  prevailed  to  bring  down  those  judgments 
which  at  present  we  feel  and  groan  under  ?  I  will  dare  to 
say  it  was  the  cause  thereof."* 

Again: — "Strange!  Take  two  Christians  equal  in  all 
points  but  this ;  nay^  let  one  go  beyond  the  other  far  for 
grace  and  holiness ;  yet  this  circumstance  of  water  shall 
drown  and  sweep  away  all  his  excellencies,  not  counting 
him  worthy  of  that  reception  that  with  hand  and  heart 
shall  be  given  a  novice  in  religion,  because  he  consents  to 
water.'' -j- 

Again  : — ''  But  if  thou  canst  hear  them  as  God's  minis- 
ters, and  sit  under  their  ministry  as  God's  ordinance,  then 
show  me  where  God  hath  such  a  gospel  ministry  as  that 
the  persons  ministering  may  not,  though  desiring  it,  be 
admitted  with  you  to  the  closest  communion  of  saints. "J 

Dr.  Howell  admits  that  'Uhe  justly-celebrated  John 
Bunyan,  author  of  the   Pilgrim's  Progress  and  numerous 


*  Complete  Works:  "Reasons  of  my  Practice  in  Worsbip,"  pp.  220.  221. 
t  Ibid.  p.  222.  +  Ibid.  p.  220. 


212  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


other  reputable  works,  was  the  father  of  open  com- 
munion"* in  the  Baptist  Church  in  England;  that  is, 
among  the  first  to  resist  strict  communion  in  the  Baptist 
Church,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  till  about  his  time  had 
practised  open  communion. 

Bobert  Hall,  of  England, — one  of  England's  most  elegant 
and  liberal  writers  and  divines,  and  one  of  the  brightest  orna- 
ments not  only  of  the  Baptist  Church  but  of  Christianity, — 
has  written  an  unanswerable  treatise  on  ''  Terms  of  Com- 
munion, with  a  Particular  View  to  the  Case  of  the  Baptists 
and  Podobaptists."  As  this  work  is  not  accessible  to  readers 
generally,  wc  shall  make  several  extracts  from  it  expressive 
of  his  opinions  of  restricted  communion  : — 

''The  writer  is  persuaded  that  a  departure  from  this  prin- 
ciple in  the  denomination  to  which  he  belongs  has  been 
extremely  injurious,  not  only  to  the  credit  and  prosperity 
of  that  particular  body,  but  to  the  general  interests  of  truth. 
By  keeping  themselves  in  a  state  of  separation  and  seclusion 
from  other  Christians,  they  have  not  only  evinced  an 
inattention  to  some  of  the  most  important  injunctions  of 
Scripture,  but  have  raised  up  an  invincible  barrier  to  the 
propagation  of  their  sentiments  beyond  the  precincts  of 
their  own  party. '^f  Again  : — ''  The  success  of  their  scheme 
tends  not  to  extend  the  practice  of  baptism, — no,  not  in  a 
single  instance, — but  merely  to  exclude  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Leaving  the  former  appointment  unaltered  and  untouched, 
it  merely  proposes  to  abolish  the  latter,  and,  as  far  as  it  is 
practicable,  to  lay  the  Christian  world  under  an  interdict. 
They  propose  to  punish  men  for  the  involuntary  neglect 
of  one  ordinance  by  compelling  them  to  abandon  the  other; 
and,  because  they  are  uneasy  at  perceiving  them  perform 


*  Terms  of  Communion,  p.  220. 
t  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  285. 


EMINENT   OPEN-COMMUNION   BAPTISTS.  213 


but  one-half  of  their  duty,  oblige  them  as  far  as  lies  in  their 
power  to  omit  the  whole.  I  must  confess  I  feel  no  partiality 
for  those  violent  remedies  which,  under  the  pretence  of 
reforming,  destroy,  or  for  that  i;;;ssion  for  order  which 
would  rather  witness  the  entire  desolation  of  the  sanctuary 
than  a  defalcation  of  its  rites ;  and,  in  spite  of  all  the  efforts 
of  sophistry,  I  must  be  permitted  to  believe  that  our  Lord's 
express  injunction  on  his  followers,  *Do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  me,'  is  a  better  reason  for  the  salvation  of  the 
communion  than  can  be  adduced  for  its  neglect."* 

x\gain  : — ''  In  withholding  the  signs  from  those  who  are 
in  possession  of  the  thing  signified,  in  refusiog  to  communi- 
cate the  symbols  of  the  great  sacrifice  to  those  who  are 
equally  with  themselves  sprinkled  by  its  blood  and  sharers 
of  its  efficacy,  in  dividing  the  regenerate  into  two  classes, 
believers  and  communicants,  and  confining  the  church  to 
the  narrow  limits  of  a  sect,  they  [the  Baptists]  have  violated 
more  maxims  of  antiquity  and  receded  further  from  the 
example  of  the  apostles  than  any  class  of  Christians  on 
record."  f 

Again  : — "  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  few  of  our  brethren 
have  duly  reflected  on  the  strong  resemblance  which  subsists 
between  the  Church  of  Home  and  the  principles  implied  in 
strict  communion:  both  equally  intolerant;  the  one  armed 
•with  pains  and  penalties,  the  other,  I  trust,  disdaining  such 
aid ;  the  one  the  intolerance  of  power,  the  other  of  weak- 
ness."J 

Again  : — "  The  tenet  to  which  we  are  opposed  produces 
an  effect  so  contrary  to  what  the  genius  of  the  gospel  teaches 
us  to  anticipate,  and  so  repugnant  to  the  noblest  feelings 
of  the  heart,  as  to  form   a  presumption  against  it  which 


■:;■■  Hall's  ^rorks,  vol  i.  pp.  308,  309. 
t  Ibid.  p.  312.  J  Ibid.  p.  358. 


214  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


nothing  can  surmount  but  the  utmost  force  and  splendor  of 
evidence/'* 

Again  : — ^'  It  is  this  presumptuous  claim  of  infallibility, 
this  assumption  of  the  prerogative  of  Christ,  this  disposition 
to  identify  ourselves  with  him  and  to  place  our  conclusions 
on  a  footing  with  his  mandates, — this  is  the  secret  spring 
of  all  that  intolerance  which  has  so  long  bewitched  the 
world  with  her  sorceries  from  the  elevation  of  papal  Kome, 
where  she  thunders  and  lightens  from  the  Vatican,  down 
to  Baptist  societies,  where  '  she  whispers  feebly  from  the 
dust/  ""f  Mr.  Hall  exhibits  "  the  striking  resemblance 
between  the  system  of  strict  communion  and  that  which 
is  maintained  by  the  Churches  of  England  and  of  Rome." 
''  The  Romish,"  says  he,  ''  it  is  well  known,  pretends  to  an 
absolute  infallibility,  requiring,  under  pain  of  excommuni- 
cation, that  the  sense  she  puts  on  the  words  of  Scripture 
should  be  received  with  the  same  submission  with  the 
inspired  volume.  In  what  respects,  let  me  ask,  is  the 
conduct  of  the  strict  Baptists  different?  A  controversy 
arises  on  the  extent  of  a  positive  rite,  whether  it  should  be 
confined  to  adults  or  be  communicated  to  infants.  Both 
parties  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  which  the  Baptist  inter- 
prets, in  my  humble  opinion,  correctly,  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  restrict  it  to  believers ;  the  Pedobaptist,  with  equal 
sincerity,  supposes  it  to  include  infants.  While  the  former 
in  his  own  practice  confines  it  to  the  description  of  persons 
•to  whom  he  judges  it  to  belong,  he  acts  with  unexception- 
able propriety;  but  when,  not  satisfied  with  this,  he  insists 
upon  forcing  his  interpretation  upon  the  conscience  of  his 
brother,  and  treats  him  precisely  in  the  same  manner  as 
though  he  avowedly  contradicted  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
what  is  this   but  an  assumption  of  infallibility?      If  we 

*  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  404.  f  I^id.  p.  442. 


EMINENT    OPEX-COMMUNIOX    BAPTISTS.  215 


presume  to  treat  our  fellow-Christians,  merely  because  they 
differ  from  us  in  the  construction  of  a  positive  precept,  as 
unworthy  of  being  recognised  as  Christ's  disciples  and 
disqualified  for  the  communion  of  saints, — if  we  allow  them 
^ faith,'  while  we  deny  them  ^obedience'  and  affirm  them 
not  to  '  revere  Christ's  authority,  submit  to  his  ordinances, 
or  obey  the  laws  of  his  house,' — we  def}^  all  the  powers  of 
discrimination  to  ascertain  the  difference  of  the  two  cases 
or  assign  a  reason  why  we  must  ascribe  the  claim  of  infalli- 
bility to  one  and  not  to  the  other.  If  judging  for  others  is 
supposed  to  involve  a  claim  of  infallibility,  and  on  that 
account,  and  that  alone,  to  be  shunned,  to  attempt  to  vindi- 
date  the  practice  of  our  opponents  from  that  imputation 
will  baffle  the  acutest  intellect.  The  Roman  Catholic 
attaches  such  importance  to  the  rite  of  baptism  as  to  believe 
that,  when  duly  administered,  it  is  necessarili/  accompanied 
with  the  pardon  of  sin  and  regenerating  grace.  The  strict 
Baptist  maintains  that  its  absence  where  all  other  religious 
qualifications  are  possessed  in  the  highest  perfection  which 
human  nature  admits  deprives  the  party  of  '  the  privileges 
of  faith'  and  renders  him  an  alien  from  the  Christian 
church.  The  adherents  to  the  papal  power  claim  to  them- 
selves the  exclusive  appellation  of  the  church, — the  arro- 
gance of  which  pretension  is  faithfully  copied  by  the  advo- 
cates of  strict  communion.  The  former,  however,  by 
confining  salvation  within  her  own  pale,  avoid  the  absurdity 
into  which  the  latter  fall,  who,  while  they  affirm  the  great 
body  of  the  faithful  are  not  entitled  to  that  appellation,  are 
obliged  to  distinguish  between  the  mystical  body  of  Christ 
and  his  church,  which  the  Scriptures  expressly  affirm  to  be 
one  and  the  same."* 

Again: — "With  mingled  surprise  and  indignation  they 

*  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  4J0,  451. 


216  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


behold  us  making  pretensions  whicli  no  other  denomination 
of  Protestants  assumes,  placing  ourselves  in  an  attitude  of 
hostility  to  the  whole  Christian  world  and  virtually  claiming 
to  be  the  only  church  of  Christ  upon  earth.  Fortified  as  it 
is  by  its  claims  to  antiquity  and  universality,  and  combining 
in  its  exterior  whatever  is  adapted  to  dazzle  the  imagination 
and  captrvate  the  senses,  there  is  nothing  in  the  Church  of 
Home  that  has  excited  more  indignation  and  disgust  than 
this  very  pretension.  What,  then,  must  be  the  sensation 
produced  when,  in  the  absence  of  all  these  advantages,  a 
sect  comparatively  small  and  insignificant  erects  itself  on  a 
solitary  eminence,  from  which  it  repels  the  approach  of  all 
other  Christians  I'"^ 

Again : — "All  that  I  have  seen  and  heard  concurs  to  con- 
vince me  that  the  practice  of  strict  communion  rests  almost 
entirely  on  autlioriti/,  and  that,  were  the  influence  of  a  few 
great  names  withdrawn,  it  would  sink  under  its  own  weight. 
Among  those  of  recent  date  none  has  been  more  regarded 
than  that  of  the  late  venerable  Fuller;  and,  as  he  left  a 
manuscript  on  this  subject  to  be  published  after  his  death, 
he  is  considered  as  having  deposed  his  dying  testimony  in 
its  favor.  That  he  felt  some  predilection  to  a  practice  to 
which  he  had  been  so  long  accustomed  and  whose  propriety 
was  very  rarely  questioned  in  his  early  days  is  freely  ad- 
mitted ;  but  that  he  all  along  felt  some  hesitation  on  the 
subject,  and  that  his  mind  was  not  completely  made  up,  I 
am  induced  to  believe  from  several  circumstances.  First, 
from  the  fact  of  his  proposing  himself  to  commune  at  Cam- 
bridge with  the  full  knowledge  of  there  being  Pedobaptists 
present.  Secondly,  from  a  conversation  which  passed  many 
years  ago  between  him  and  the  writer  of  these  lines.  In 
reply  to  his  observations  that  they  act  precisely  on  the  same 

»  lUWi  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  227. 


EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS.  217 


principle  with  our  Pedobaptist  brethreu,  since  they  also  in- 
sist on  baptism  as  an  essential  prerequisite  to  communion, 
it  was  remarked  that  this  was  a  mere  argumentum  ad  Ico- 
ininem :  it  might  serve  to  silence  the  clamors  of  those 
Pedobaptists  who,  while  they  adhered  to  that  principle, 
charged  us  with  bigotry,  but  that  still  it  did  not  touch  the 
merits  of  the  question,  since  a  previous  inquiry  occurs, 
whether  any  thing  more  is  requisite  to  communion  on  scrip- 
tural ground  than  a  vital  union  with  Christ.  His  answer 
was,  When  mixed  communion  is  placed  on  that  footing^  I 
never  yet  ventured  to  attach  it. 

^'In  short,  there  is  a  certain  false  refinement  and  subtility 
in  the  argument  for  strict  communion  which  would  never 
occur  to  a  plain  man  who  was  left  solely  to  the  guidance  of 
Scripture.  In  common  with  almost  every  other  error,  it 
derived  its  origin  from  the  public  teachers  of  religion,  and 
with  a  change  of  sentiment  in  them  it  will  gradually  dis- 
appear; nor  will  it  be  long  ere  our  churches  will  be  sur- 
prised that  they  suffered  themselves  to  be  betrayed  by 
specious  but  hollow  sophistry  into  a  practice  so  repulsive 
and  so  impolitic.'^* 

Again: — To  ^Hhe  argument  for  strict  communion  from 
the  order  of  words  in  the  apostolic  communion,''  Mr.  Hall 
replies,  ^'It  is  obvious,  if  the  reasoning  of  our  opponents 
be  valid,  it  militates  irresistibly  against  the  inculcation  of 
every  branch  of  Christian  duty  on  persons  who  in  their 
judgment  have  not  partaken  of  the  baptismal  sacrament: 
it  excludes  them  not  merely  from  the  Lord's  Supper,  Jjut 
from  every  species  of  instruction  appropriate  to  Christians; 
nor  can  they  exhort  Pedobaptists  to  walk  worthy  of  their 
high  calling,  to  adorn  their  Christian  profession,  to  cultivate 
brotherly  love,  or  to  the  performance  of  any  duty  resulting 

*  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  209,  210. 
19 


218  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


from  their  actual  relation  to  Christ,  witBout  a  palpable  vio- 
lation of  their  own  principles.  We  affirm  that  in  no  part 
of  Scripture  is  it  inculcated  as  a  preparative  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  that  this  view  of  it  is  a  mere  fiction  of  the 
imagination.  How  came  the  deteriorating  effects  of  their 
error  respecting  baptism  to  affect  them  hut  in  one  part — 
that  of  their  eligibility  as  candidates  for  communion — with- 
out spreading  further?  That  it  just  amounts  to  a  forfeiture 
of  this  privilege,  and  of  no  other,  is  a  conclusion  to  which, 
as  it  is  certain  it  cannot  be  established  by  reason,  we  ask  to 
be  conducted  by  revelation;  and  we  entreat  our  opponents 
for  information  again  and  again,  but  entreat  in  vain.^^* 

Again: — "Let  this  principle  be  once  established  and 
fairly  acted  upon,  and  there  is  no  question  but  that  divi- 
sions will  succeed  to  divisions,  and  separations  to  separa- 
tions, until  two  persons  possessed  of  freedom  of  thought 
will  scarcely  be  found  capable  of  walking  together  in  fellow- 
ship, and  an  image  of  the  infinite  indivisibility  of  matter 
will  be  exhibited  in  the  breakins-.down  of  churches  into 
smaller  and  smaller  portions.  An  admirable  expedient,  truly, 
for  keeping  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace  !"f 

Again: — '^ If  communion  with  a  Christian  society  cannot 
be  had  without  a  compliance  with  rites  and  usages  which 
we  deem  idolatrous  or  superstitious,  or  without  a  surrender 
of  that  liberty  in  which  we  are  commanded  to  stand  fast, 
we  must,  as  we  value  our  allegiance,  forego,  however  .reluc- 
tantly, the  advantages  of  such  a  union.'' J  Finally : — "  Strict 
communion  is  the  general  practice  of  our  churches,  though 
the  abettors  of  the  opposite  opinion  are  Tapidly  increasing 
both  in  numhers  and  in  raipectahULti/.'"^ 

Dr.  Alexander  Carson,  the  author  of  the  great  text-book 

*  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  305,  307.  f  Ibid.  p.  456. 

+  Ibid.  p.  290.  §  Ibid.  p.  292. 


EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION   BAPTISTS.  219 


with  the  Baptists,  who  "  lived  during  the  controversy  of 
Fuller,  Hall,  and  Kinghorn  on  open  communion,''  was  in 
favor  of  open  communion.  The  following  extracts  are  taken 
from  his  biography  by  George  C.  Moore,  who  ''  long  resided 
under  his  roof  and  enjoyed  his  unbounded  confidence,"  and 
which  biography  Mrs.  Hanna,  Dr.  Carson's  daughter,  de- 
clares has  been  written  "faithfully,  forcibly,  clearly,  and 
without  exaggeration  or  partiality."* 

"  Dr.  Carson  lived  during  the  controversy  of  Fuller,  Hall, 
and  Kinghorn  on  open  communion.  He  was  often  requested 
to  publish  his  views  on  this  subject,  but  all  efibrts  to  induce 
him  to  do  so  failed.  He,  however,  promised  to  leave  his 
family  his  ideas  on  this  contested  question,  for  posthumous 
publication;  ^but,'  said  he,  'my  views  on  that  subject 
must  not  be  published  while  I  live.*  The  Baptist  Publi- 
cation Society  have  prefixed  an  article  to  his  book  on  bap- 
tism, written  by  the  Reverend  John  Young,  in  which  it  is 
said  that  the  church  at  Tubbermore  'have  never  regarded 
an  obedience  to  baptism  as  an  indispensable  condition  of 
admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Indeed,  they  have  carried 
the  principle  of  open  communion  to  the  utmost  eitent,  by 
receiving  members  into  their  body  upon  evidence  of  their 
conversion,  with  but  little  inquiry  whether  they  agreed  with 
them  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  Certain  it  is  that  Mr. 
Carson  believed  this  plan  to  be  consistent  with  the  will  of 
the  Lord ;  and  this  fact,  while  it  may  seem  to  show  that  his 
views  of  gospel  order  were  not  in  all  respects  precise  and 
clear,  is  at  the  same  time  a  strong  proof  of  his  extreme 
liberality  and  kindness  of  disposition.  He  was  ever  more 
ready  to  hold  fellowship  even  with  those  Pedobaptists  who 
otherwise  taught,  a  pure  gospel  than  with  such  Baptists  as 
he  might  conceive  to  have  departed  from  genuine  ortho- 

*  "Recommendations"  affixed  to  Life  of  Carson,  by  Moore. 


220  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNTON    BAPTISTS. 


doxy/  In  justice  to  Dr.  Carson's  memory^  I  must  say  that 
he  solemnly  disclaims,  in  his  preface  to  the  book  to  which 
the  above  is  prefixed,  the  principle  to  which  this  writer 
attributes  his  practice.  ^Liberty  of  sentiment/  says  the 
doctor,  'is  not  a  phrase  which  I  admit  into  my  religious  voca- 
bulary; for,  though  I  love  and  acknowledge  those  who  love 
the  Lord  Jesus,  I  hold  myself  as  much  under  the  law  of 
God  in  embracing  all  the  children  of  God  as  in  forming  the 
articles  of  my  creed.  My  recognition  of  all  Christians  I 
ground  on  the  authority  of  Jesus.  To  set  at  naught  the 
weakest  of  Christ's  little  ones  I  call  not  illiberal,  but  un- 
christian.''^  Mr.  Moore  then  inserts  "an  extract  from  a 
letter  which  Dr.  Carson  wrote  in  reply  to  an  epistle  from  a 
church  in  New  York,  addressed  in  care  of  his  respected 
friend,  James  Buchanan,  Esq.,  late  British  consul,''  from 
which  we  extract  the  following.     It  bears  date 

"  TUBBERMORE,  NoRTH    OF  IRELAND,     "i 

"May  6th,  1819.  ] 

^'  The  church  of  Christ  at  Tubbermore  to  the  church  of 
Christ  at  New  York.  Grace  be  to  you,  and  peace,  from  God 
our  Father,  and  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

"Beloved  Brethren: — 

"It  is  not  from  inattention,  nor  from  want  of  impression 
of  the  importance  of  the  subject  of  your  communication, 
that  we  did  not  at  first  fully  reply  to  you,  &c.  Ignorance 
of  any  divine  institution  is  an  evil,  and  must  be  felt  as  such 
by  a  church,  as  far  as  it  exists  in  any  of  its  body.  But  the 
question  is.  What  is  God's  way  for  getting  rid  of  an  evil  ? 
We  believe  that  it  is  by  forbearance,  affectionate  instruc- 
tion, and  prayer.  Many,  on  the  contrary,  have  thought  that 
the  most  efi"ectual  way  to  make  a  disciple  receive  an  ordi- 
nance of  Jesus  is  to  refuse  him  fellowship  till  he  has  com- 


EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS.  221 


plied.  Notwithstanding  all  we  have  heard  in  favor  of  this 
plan,  we  still  deem  it  the  wisdom  of  man.  Accordingly,  we 
have  found  that  God  has  made  foolish  this  wisdom.  Long 
has  it  been  tried  without  success ;  and  of  late,  in  some  parts 
of  Ireland,  it  has  been  carried  so  far  that  some  individuals 
can  scarcely  find  a  second  to  unite  with  them  in  constant 
fellowship.  By  permitting  Satan  to  work  tljem  up  to  this 
frenzy,  it  appears  to  us  that  God  has  fixed  his  seal  of  dis- 
approbation on  the  sentiment  in  its  lowest  degree,  and  would 
lead  sober-minded  Christians,  who  have  been  led  away  by  its 
plausibility,  to  examine  more  attentively  the  ground  of  their 
opinion.  It  detracts  co.nsiderahly  from  the  joy  with  tvhich 
tee  shoidd  have  received  your  letter  that  we  find  no  notice 
taken  of  this  subject,  hut,  on  the  contrary,  that  you  seem  to 
make  baptism  a  term  of  fellowship.  The  greater  part  of 
our  members  not  only  have  been  baptized,  but  we  are  con- 
vinced that  views  on  this  subject  extensively  affect  other 
matters  in  Scripture ;  but  we  all  deem  that  a  man  who  has 
been  received  by  Jesus  ought  not  to  be  rejected  by  us,  and  that 
if  he  feed  his  people  with  his  ordinances  it  icould  be  crimi- 
nal in  us,  as  far  as  in  our  power,  to  join  in  confederacy  to 
starve  the  v:eaJcest  of  them.  AYe  think  that  the  man  who 
has  been  admitted  to  the  fellowship  of  ^  the  general  assembly 
and  church  of  the  first-born^  is  undoubtedly  worthy  of  a 
seat  with  us.  We  entreat  you  to  examine  this  subject, — 
recollecting  that,  if  it  he  sinful  to  receive  any  that  Christ 
has  forbidden,  it  is  also  sinfid  to  refuse  any  that  he  has 
invited.  There  is  no  safe  side  in  error !  That  Jesus  will 
not  approve  of  refusing  fellowship  to  any  of  his  brethren, 
known  to  be  such,  appears  to  us  to  have  the  irresistible 
light  of  self-evident  truth.'"'' 
In  another  letter,  addressed  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  in  1833,  in 


*  Monro's  Life  of  C'nrson,  pp.  8;!-89, 


EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


allusion  to  the  same  subject,  Dr.  Carson  observes,  "The 
church  in  this  place  has  always  acted  on  that  principle. 
There  is  nothing  of  greater  importance  to  the  welfare  and  pros- 
perity of  the  churches  than  to  bring  them  to  understand  this 
point.  But  there  is  nothing  in  which  they  are  so  ignorant  and 
to  which  they  are  so  averse.  They  consider  that  they  have 
attained  to  pej-fection  in  this  matter,  and,  by  a  false  view  of 
the  want  of  zeal,  consider  themselves  entitled  to  refuse  their 
fellowship  to  many  of  the  sheep  of  Christ.'^* 

The  "  Reasons  for  Free  Communion"  which  Baptist  W. 
Noel  addresses  to  his  Baptist  brethren  are  so  excellent  that 
copious  extracts  from  them  may  not  be  unacceptable  to  the 
reader : — 

^^  There  are  many  Pedobaptists  who  love  and  serve  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  They  are  his  members,  his  servants, 
his  soldiers,  his  friends.  They  maintain  his  authority,  pro- 
mote his  cause,  copy  his  example,  obey  his  precepts,  and 
live  for  his  glory.  They  love  him,  and  are  therefore  loved 
by  him,  (John  xiv.  21,)  and  to  each  of  them  he  will  say 
at  last,  '  Well  done,  good  and  faithful  servant :  enter  thou 
into  the  joy  of  thy  Lord.'   (Matt,  xxiii.) 

''  Why  ought  not  Baptists  to  own  them  as  brethren  ?  X\\ 
who  are  the  servants  of  Christ  ought  to  be  owned  as  such. 
If  he  honors  and  loves  them,  it  is  not  his  will  that  their 
fellow-servants  should  dishonor  them.  God  has  made  them 
his  children  by  adoption  and  grace,  and  cannot  be  pleased 
to  see  that  while  they  are  owned  by  him  they  are  disowned 
by  their  brethren.  It  must  be  right  to  own  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  wherever  it  is  accomplished,  and  to  choose 
those  for  our  friends  whom  he  has  chosen  to  be  his  temples : 
(1  Cor.  vi.  19.)  It  is  according  to  nature,  and  grace  too, 
that  the  sheep  of  the  same  flock,  under  the  same  shepherd, 

::•  Moore"?  Life  of  Cavson,  p.  89. 


EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS.  22i 


should  walk  together  and  feed  together  in  the  same  pastures : 
(John  X.  16.)  Brothers  ought  to  sit  down  together  at  their 
Father's  table,  (John  i.  12;  Gal.  vi.  10;)  and  soldiers  of 
the  same  army  ought  to  be  united.  (Eph.  vi.  10-17;  1  Thess. 
V.  8.) 

"We  are  called  to  receive  all  Christ's  disciples,  notwith- 
standing their  errors,  as  Christ  has  received  us,  notwith- 
standing ours.  If  we  must  not  openly  acknowledge  them 
because  of  some  defects  in  knowledge,  why  should  Christ 
accept  us  notwithstanding  greater  defects  ?  The  great 
ground  of  this  open  reception,  this  free  brotherly  inter- 
course, is  stated  by  St.  Paul  in  these  words : — '  Let  not  him 
that  eateth  not  judge  him  that  eateth,  for  God  hath  re- 
ceived him.''  (Rom.  xiv.  3.)  In  other  words,  let  not  the 
Baptist,  who  cannot  baptize  infants,  condemn  pious  Pedo- 
baptists,  who  do  baptize  them,  because  their  faithful  pro- 
fession and  their  holy  life  prove  that  God  has  received 
them ;  and  those  who  are  accepted  by  God  as  his  beloved 
children  are  surely  good  enough  to  be  welcomed  by  erring 
and  sinful  followers  of  Christ  as  beloved  brethren. 

"As  ^brethren,'  they  are  Christ's  disciples,  and  therefore 
commanded  by  him  to  eat  and  drink  in  memory  of  him, 
(Matt.  xxvi.  26,)  but  they  must  not  eat  and  drink  with 
their  fellow-servants.  They  are  welcome  guests  to  their 
Lord,  but  are  repelled  by  their  fellow-guests.  Elsewhere 
they  are  owned  to  be  brethren,  but  the  chief  sign  of  brother- 
hood must  be  withheld  from  them.  They  may  lead  the 
prayers  of  their  fellow-Christians,  and  they  may  instruct 
the  churches  as  enlightened  and  holy  ministers  of  Christ; 
yet  in  that  ordinance  which  is  specially  appointed  to  be  a 
sign  of  the  communion  of  saints  and  the  unity  of  the  body 
(1  Cor.  X.  17)  they  must  be  put  out  as  though  they  were 
not  members.  What  a  spectacle  is  thus  afforded  to  the 
world,  who  see  with   contempt  that  the  most  earnest  fol- 


224  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


lowers  of  the  Redeemer  cannot  even  commemorate  his  death 
together !  When  the  saints  of  Jesus  are  thus  put  out  of 
the  communion  of  any  of  his  churches,  are  not  those  who 
put  them  out  treading  in  the  steps  of  Diotrephes,  (3  John 
10,)  though  with  a  different  spirit  ? 

^'But  how  can  the  godly  Pedobaptist  be  excluded  on 
these  terms?  He  is  no  more  a  disobedient  unbeliever  than 
the  strictest  of  the  Baptists  who  would  exclude  him.  The 
reason  why  he  is  a  Pedobaptist  is  that  he  believes  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  to  be  according  to  the  will  of  Christ.  What 
person  was  ever  excluded  from  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the 
apostolic  churches  for  doing  all  that  he  believed  (after 
searching  of  the  Scriptures  and  listening  to  apostles)  to  be 
according  to  the  will  of  Christ  ?  What  upright  and  earnest 
believer  was  ever  in  those  days  excluded?  What  member 
of  one  church  was  refused  communion  with  the  members 
of  another?  In  what  apostolic  church  were  ever  such  men 
as  Baxter,  Howe,  and  Flavel,  Doddridge  and  Whitefield, 
Edwards  and  Payson,  Fletcher,  Martin,  Brainerd,  and 
Chalmers, — men  full  of  the  Holy  Grhost  and  wisdom, 
walking  with  God  and  laboring  for  Christ, — refused  such 
communion  ?  It  was  reserved  for  worse  days  to  see  so 
strange  a  spectacle. 

"What  if  these  good  soldiers  had  not  taken  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  their  king  in  the  exact  manner  in  which  Bap- 
tists take  it,  still  it  was  taken.  What  if  they  had  not  put 
on  their  king's  uniform  just  as  Baptists  put  it  on,  yet  they 
wore  it.  The  Baptist* has  professed  his  allegiance  to  Christ 
at  baptism ;  the  Pedobaptist  has  professed  it  at  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Both  wear  the  king's  uniform,  but  the  one 
assumed  it  at  the  earlier  rite,  the  other  more  irregularly  at 
the  later  rite.  If  the  one  in  baptism  professed  to  die  and 
rise  with  Christ,  the  other  in  the  supper  ^showed  forth  the 
Lord's  death.'   (1  Cor.  xi.  26.) 


EMINENT   OPEN-COMMUNION   BAPTISTS.  225 


''If,  indeed,  to  admit  him  to  the  table  were  to  dispense 
"with  the  command  of  Christ  and  to  sanction  the  neglect  of 
baptism^  he  must  not  be  admitted;  but  this  cannot  be, 
because  he  is  admitted  by  the  churches  who  practise  free 
communion,  on  the  ground  that  he  is  a  believer  who  keeps 
the  commands  of  Christ,  honors  baptism,  and  believes  that 
he  has  been  baptized.  I  own  that  he  is  unbaptized ;  but 
his  case  is  totally  different  from  the  case  of  a  person  refusing 
to  be  baptized  in  the  time  of  the  apostles.  They  knew  that 
they  were  disregarding  a  divine  command;  he  believes  him- 
self to  be  fulfilling  it :  they  refused  baptism  because  they 
despised  the  authority  of  Christ ;  he  refuses  it  because  he 
respects  that  authority.  A  loyal,  loving,  and  obedient 
believer,  who  obeys  the  commands  of  Christ  as  far  as  he 
knows  them, — why  should  he  be  excluded?  He  is  unbap- 
tized, it  is  true ;  but  his  neglect  of  baptism  is  simply  an 
error;  and  if  a  faithful,  loving,  and  obedient  believer, 
who  studies  and  follows  the  Scriptures,  is  to  be  excluded 
from  communion  for  an  error  which  does  not  touch  the 
great  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  where  is  the  exclusion 
to  stop  ?  Arminians  and  Calvinists  must  not  hold  com- 
munion together,  nor  Presbyterians,  Anglicans,  and 
Independents,  nor  Millenarians  with  anti-Millenarians, 
nor  members  of  establishments  with  members  of  free 
churches,  nor  free-communion  Baptists  with  those  who 
advocate  strict  communion,  nor  any  believer  with  any  other 
whom  he  believes  to  be  in  error.  No  members  of  any 
church  can  receive  the  Lord's  Supper  together.  Churches 
must  be  scattered,  and  nothing  remain  but  a  sickening  and 
noxious  individuality,  the  churches  being  reduced  to  a 
chaos  of  disconnected  units. 

''Let  it  further  be  observed  that  the  reasoning  which 
could  prove  that  unbaptized  persons  must  not,  under  any 
circumstances,  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table,  must  equally 


226  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


prove  that  they  must  not,  under  any  circumstances,  be 
owned  as  brethren.  If  you  sanction  their  error  by  admit- 
ting them  to  the  Lord's  table,  you  must  sanction  it  no  less 
by  all  fraternization  with  them ;  and,  since  we  must  never 
do  evil  that  good  may  come,  all  persons,  according  to  this 
doctrine,  must  exclude  from  their  fellowship  all  whom  they 
imagine  to  be  in  error,  and,  unless  they  be  themselves  infal- 
lible, must  allow  all  their  fellow-Christians  equally  to  excom- 
municate them.  Since  this  absurd  conclusion  follows  from 
the  doctrine  that  in  admitting  saints  as  such  to  the  com- 
munion of  saints  we  sanction  their  errors,  it  follows  that  this 
doctrine  is  false.  Saints  may  be  admitted  to  the  table  of 
their  Lord  without  sanction  of  their  errors,  and  Pedobaptists 
may  come  to  it  without  any  dishonor  done  to  the  sacrament 
of  baptism.  ^ 

^^  If  I  mistake  not,  it  must  injure  the  spirit  of  the 
churches  which  practise  it.  How  can  they  so  separate  from 
those  with  whom  they  are  commanded  to  be  openly  one 
without  serious  loss  ?  (John  xvii.  20,  21.)  How  can  they 
so  value  the  rite  of  baptism  as  to  repel  from  their  com- 
munion those  who  have  the  faith  and  devotedness  which 
the  rite  expresses,  and  not  sujQfer  by  it  ?  At  least,  they 
must  be  much  tempted  to  overvalue  the  form  of  religion 
and  to  undervalue  the  reality,  to  '  pay  tithe  of  mint  and 
anise  and  cummin'  and  to  ^  omit  the  weightier  matters  of 
the  law,  judgment,  mercy,  and  faith.'  (Matt,  xxiii.  23.) 
This  exclusion  of  holy  men  seems  a  palpable  disregard  to 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  Pedobaptists,  tempts  Baptists  to 
overvalue  themselves  on  account  of  baptism,  and,  if  it 
impairs  the  spirituality  of  the  church,  must  hinder  the 
conversion  of  sinners. 

^'  For  consider  the  real  character  of  this  exclusion.  Those 
only  are  ordered  in  the  word  of  God  to  be  excluded  who  aro 


EMINENT   OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS.  227 


heretical  in  doctrine,  (Gal.  v.  12,)  who  are  vicious  in  their 
practice,  (1  Cor.  v.  11,  13,)  who  are  schismatical  in  their 
temper,  (Rom.  xvi.  17,)  who  injure  their  brethren,  (Matt, 
xviii.  17,)  or  who  are  openly  disobedient  to  the  commands 
of  Christ.  (2  Thess.  iii.  14.)  But  you  exclude  in  company 
with  all  these  some  of  the  most  loyal,  the  most  active,  the 
bravest,  and  the  most  loving  disciples  of  Christ.  They 
may,  like  Enoch,  walk  with  God ;  like  Abraham,  sacrifice 
all  that  is  dearest  to  them  to  serve  him;  like  Moses, 
trample  under  feet  the  world's  most  alluring  bribes ;  like 
Paul,  consecrate  noble  faculties  with  untiring  ardor  to  the 
cause  of  their  Redeemer ;  and  yet,  because  they  are  Pedo- 
baptists,  you  will  exclude  them  from  the  table  of  their 
Lord.  You  do  this  because  they  will  follow  what  they 
believe  to  be  the  will  of  Christ,  the  meaning  of  his  com- 
mand, and  the  practice  of  his  apostles.  You  do  this  because 
they  do  just  what  you  do  yourselves, — since  you  will  baptize 
believers  alone  because  you  think  that  Christ  requires  it, 
and  they  will  baptize  infants  because  they  think  that  he 
requires  it.  You  do  this,  therefore,  on  a  principle  which 
would  justify  their  exclusion  of  you,  which  proscribes  all 
communion  among  believers  and  would  substitute  sub- 
mission to  human  authority  for  entire,  unlimited  submission 
to  the  authority  of  Christ.  This  cannot  be  right :  a  more 
brotherly  course  is  demanded  by  the  plain  precepts  of 
Scripture,  by  the  clear  proofs  of  faith  and  love  in  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren,  by  the  duty  of  independent  judgment 
inculcated  on  all.  (Rom.  xiv.  5,  23.)  And  to  admit  the 
saints  of  Christ  as  such  to  his  table,  to  demand  no  other 
terms  of  communion  than  such  as  are  terms  of  salvation,  to 
welcome  as  brethren  all  whose  doctrine  and  conduct  prove 
them  to  be  so,  and  to  invite  all  evangelical  churches  to  this 
manifested  unity,  is  at  once  to  extend  the  true  doctrine  of 


228  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


baptism  and  to  promote  the  progress  of  Clirist^s  kingdom  in 
the  world/'* 

We  refer  next  to  other  Baptists  in  favor  of  open  com- 
munion. Dr.  John  Kyland,  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
of  the  Baptist  ministers  of  England,  was  in  favor  of  mixed 
communion.  He  had  republished  Bunyan's  reasons  for  the 
practice,  with  some  of  his  own.  Mr.  Jay,  in  his  reminis- 
cences of  him,  says  that  he  was  one  day  dining  at  a  friend's 
house,  when  one  of  the  company  asked  him  his  opinion 
about  strict  communion  and  excluding  pious  men  from  the 
Lord's  table.  He  replied  thus: — ^'You  decide  the  thing  by 
calling  it  the  Lord's  table.  Suppose,  sir,  when  I  entered 
this  room  I  had  taken  upon  me  to  say,  Mr.  such-a-one 
(naming  him)  and  Mrs.  such-a-one,  ^  You  shall  not  sit  down 
at  this  table :'  what  would  Mr.  D.,  the  master  of  the  house, 
say?  'Why,  John  Ryland,  you  have  forgotten  yourself! 
You  are  not  the  owner  of  this  table,  but  the  master  is.  The 
table  is  mine,  and  I  have  a  right  to  invite  them, — and  I 
have  invited  them ;  and  is  it  for  you  to  forbid  them  ?  So 
in  the  church  the  table  is  the  Lord's;  and  all  who  are 
called  by  his  grace  are  his  guests;  and  he  has  hidden 
them."t 

^^  In  America,  at  the  head  of  the  liberal  class  stood  the 
late  excellent  Dr.  Stillman,  of  Boston,  who  was  beloved  by 
all  the  churches  in  that  city  and  respected  by  Christians 
throughout  the  United  States,"J  and  only  declined  com- 
muning with  Pedobaptist  ministers  because  he  ^'  found  the 
brethren  of  his  church  and  other  Baptists  unfavorable  to 
the  intercourse. "§  Rev.  S.  W.  Whitney,  A.M.,  late  pastor 
of  the  Baptist  Church,  Westport,  N.Y.,  and  still  a  Bap- 

*  Noel  on  Christian  Baptism,  pp.  287-301. 

f  Puritan  Recorder. 

X  Dr.  Griffin's  Letter  on  Communion,  Bap.  Lib.  vol.  iii.  p.  213. 

2  Ibid.  p.  224. 


EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS.  229 


tist,  has  issued  a  small  treatise  on  ''Open  Communion/' 
which  has  reached  the  second  edition ;  and  in  the  preface 
he  says,  ^'  From  some  who  differ  from  him  he  knows  what 
to  expect.  But  he  is  happy  to  know,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  there  are  many,  and  Baptkts  too,  who  will  welcome  his 
humble  effort  as  a  tohen  of  the  dawn  of  a  coming  brighter 
day."  And  he  accompanies  it  with  a  prayer  "That  the 
volume,  as  it  now  goes  forth  to  the  public,  may  be  accom- 
panied with  the  divine  blessing,  and  aid  in  doing  away  with 
one  of  the  most  uncalled-for  and  unscriptural  bars  to  the  full 
intercommunion  of  Christians  in  things  emblematic  of  their 
union  to  Christ  and  to  one  another  as  members  of  his 
family."*  And  to  this  prayer  we  cordially  breathe  Amen. 
He  denies  that  "baptism  has  been  held  in  all  ages  and  by 
all  denominations  to  be  a  divinely-prescribed  term  of  com- 
munion." "  When  you  say  that  baptism  has  been  held  by 
all  denominations  to  be  a  term  of  communion,  either  you 
are  no  Baptist,  or  your  assertion  is  not  true ;  for  a  professing 
of  Christ  by  immersion — the  thing  that  you  are  contending 
for,  and  the  only  thing  that  you  are  willing  to  admit  to  be 
baptism — has  not  been  held  by  all  denominations  to  be 
necessary  to  communion.  In  no  age  and  by  no  denomi- 
nation, except  the  close-communion  Baptists  of  modern 
times,  has  the  want  of  an  immersional  profession  of 
Christianity  been  considered  a  barrier  to  the  Lord's 
table."t 

Again: — "One  of  the  first  things  that  strikes  an  indi- 
vidual in  looking  at  the  system  of  restricted  communion  is 
its  glaring  want  of  candor  and  consistency.  It  is  not  what 
it  professes  to  be.  It  restricts  the  supper  from  others  pro- 
fessedly on  the  ground  of  their  not  being  baptized.  It 
asserts  its  readiness  to  admit  to  the  Lord's  table  any  who 

^-  Whitney  on  Communion,  p.  4.  f  Ibid.  pp.  78,  79. 

20 


230  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


have  been  baptized  and  are  leading  irreproachable  Chris- 
tian lives.  Yet  it  excludes  many  such,  and  betrays  an  utter 
insincerity  of  profession.  When  met  with  this  fact,  it 
changes  its  ground,  takes  another  stand,  and  yet  another, 
and  says.  Communion  is  a  symbol  of  particular  church- 
fellowship,  and  therefore  it  is  that  others  are  excluded. 
But  in  so  doing  it  takes  a  stand  equally  false, — the  supper 
being  never  administered  as  a  particular  church-ordinance, 
but  as  a  denominational  observance.  There  is  a  want  of 
candor  on  the  part  of  its  advocates,  in  not  presenting  their 
reasons  for  it  in  their  true  light  and  on  their  true  basis, 
while  they  endeavor  to  shield  themselves  under  subterfuges 
which  have  only  the  appearance  of  truth.  A  system  that 
needs  such  a  mode  of  defence  is  not  of  Grod.  He  is  light, 
and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all.  And  if  we  would  walk 
in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light,  we  should  not  be  close- 
communionists."* 

Ao;ain : — "So  lone;;  as  it  is  a  stubborn  fact  that  there  are 
multitudes  of  holy  and  zealous  Christians  who  differ  from  us 
in  their  views  respecting  the  act  and  subjects  of  baptism, 
it  is  enough  to  know  that  those  with  whom  we  engage  in 
the  solemn  ordinance  of  commemorating  the  Savior's  death 
are  members  together  with  us  of  the  common  household  of 
faith.  Nay,  more :  I  consider  it  unworthy  of  any  enlightened 
mind,  and  beneath  the  dignity  of  the  religion  of  Christ,  to 
descend  at  any  time,  much  more  at  such  a  time,  to  the  in- 
quiry how  a  disciple,  eminent  it  may  be  for  his  piety  and 
usefulness,  has  made  his  profession  of  Christianity.  Such 
a  course  ill  becomes  a  follower  of  Christ.''| 

Again: — '^It  is  perfectly  ridiculous  to  see  any  one  at- 
tempting to  show  that  a  ^Pedobaptist  church  is  no  home 


••■■•  "Whitney  on  Communion,'  pp.  128,  129. 
t  Ibid.  p.  93. 


EMINENT   OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS.  231 


for  a  Baptist/  when  a  close-communion  churclij  as  such, 
ought  to  be  a  home  for  no  christian.'^ "^ 

Again  ; — "If  the  Baptist  denomination  is  less  numerous 
than  it  might  be,  if  its  influence  both  at  home  and  abroad 
is  not  what  it  should  be,  Baptists  have  nothing  to  blame 
for  this  more  than  their  own  dwarfing,  antichristian,  and 
odious  system  of  denominational  communion, — a  system  that 
decapitates  all  non-conformists, — as  unwarranted  as  the  papal 
restrictions  of  the  use  of  God's  word,  and  as  intolerant  as 
the  spirit  that  drove  Boger  Williams,  as  a  dangerous  man, 
from  his  home.  It  goes  to  work  to  advance  the  truth  in 
the  very  best  way  calculated  to  blind  men  to  it  and  to  keep 
them  from  examining  it.  It  runs  directly  counter  to  the 
voice  of  reason  and  the  genius  of  Christianity,  which  teach 
that  if  we  would  win  from  error  we  are  not  to  expect  suc- 
cess by  the  use  of  harsh,  coercive,  and  repulsive  means, 
but  by  those  that  are  mild,  conciliatory,  and  attractive. "f 

Again  : — "Overlooking  the  great  principles  in  which  the 
power  of  the  gospel  lies,  and   going  contrary  to  them,  it\ 
vainly  seeks  to  bring  men  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth 
by  setting  it  in  a  repulsive  and  odious  light.    Such  a  system, 
be  it  from  what  source  it  may,  cannot  be  of  God. ''J 

Again: — "When  the  communion  is  made  a,  denomina- 
tional thing,  as  it  really  is,  its  administration  is  more  than 
unjustifiable;  it  calls  for  reprehension  from  every  Christian, 
as  a  course  that  degrades  the  ordinance  and  dishonors  Him 
who  instituted  it.  If  this  is  not  the  ofi"spring  of  party 
spirit,  it  would  be  hard  to  say  what  is.  It  is  a  desecration 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  which  finds  no  parallel  in  Christian 
churches, — a  tampering  with  a  divine  institution  of  which 
the  world  itself  is  not  guilty. "§ 

*  Whitney  on  Communion,  p.  142.  f  Ibid.  p.  142. 

X  Ibid.  p.  144.  §  Ibid.  pp.  145,  146. 


232  EMINENT    OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


Again: — ''It  is  gratifying,  however,  to  know — as  I  do 
know — that  there  are  multitudes  belonging  to  our  [Baptist] 
churches  who  would  gladly  see  the  practice  abolished,  and 
would  readily  abjure  it,  but  for  the  want  of  ministerial  co- 
operation and  sanction,  the  fear  of  being  fickle-minded,  and 
the  dread  of  excommunication  and  unkind  treatment,  in 
some  cases,  from  those  they  love.'^* 

Again  : — ''But  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the 
day  is  at  hand  when  the  system  of  restricted  communion 
must  be  abolished,  if  not  entirely,  at  least  to  a  very  great  ex- 
tent. Present  indications  sJiow  that  the  strong  tide  of  feeling 
which  for  years  past  has  been  increasing  against  it  cannot 
much  longer  he  succcssfulli/  kept  hack.  Its  inconsistencies 
and  glaring  antichristian  character  are  becoming  daily  more 
and  more  felt.  And,  when  the  mind  of  the  denomination 
is  fairly  enlightened  to  see  them,  it  must  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  system  is  not  only  uncalled-for,  but  un- 
scriptural  and  unworthy  of  a  follower  of  Christ,  This  is  till 
we  need/'f 

In  England  the  tendency  to  open  communion  in  the 
Baptist  Church  is  alarming  and  portentous  to  the  Baptist 
Church.  Our  authority  for  this  statement  is  J.  Gr.  Fuller 
himself,  already  quoted  largely  in  this  treatise,  a  Baptist 
in  England,  and  the  celebrated  author  of  "Conversations 
between  two  Laymen  on  Strict  and  Mixed  Communion," 
in  reply  to  Robert  Hall's  great  treatise  on  Open  Com- 
munion. In  the  "preface'^  to  his  "conversations"  Mr. 
F.  observes,  "The  tendency  of  mixed  [open]  communion 
is  becoming  every  day  more  apparent,  and  its  deteriorating 
and  dissociating  influence  more  visible.  Every,  successive 
month  brings  'certain  strange  things'  to  our  ears;  a  standing 
ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ  displaced,  condemned,  and  decried; 

*  Whituey  on  Commuuion;  j).  151.  f  Ibid.  p.  152. 


EMINENT   OPEN-COMMUNION   BAPTISTS.  233 


its  very  mention  deprecated;  natural  allusion  to  it  stu- 
diously avoided;  the  almost  total  suppression,  in  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  of  one  of  '  the  counsels  of  God ;'  the  reception 
of  members  without  any  baptism,  notwithstanding  a  renun- 
ciation of  the  ceremony  performed  in  infancy  and  without 
any  public  confession  of  faith  in  Christ,  beyond  a  knowledge 
of  character  and  personal  appearance  in  the  temple  of 
mixed  communion;  clandestine  admissions  of  unhaptized 
[unimmersed^  persons  to  the  Lord's  table;  attempts  to  en- 
force mixed  communion;  unnecessary  and  umuelcome 
collision  with  Pedobaptist  churches;  the  constitution  of 
Baptist  churches  altered  by  way  of  experiment;  the  neces- 
sary expulsion  of  conscientious  strict  Baptists ;  defective 
discipline;  a  general  relaxation  from  primitive  Chris- 
tianity;  a  disposition  to  sacrifice  another  ^non-essential,' 
the  Lord's  Supper,  lohenever  the  supposed  interests  of  peace 
and  union  shall  mahe  the  demand ;  private  baptisms,  in 
compliance  icith  the  special  desire  of  Pedobaptist  members; 
the  celebration  of  believer^  baptism  in  the  morning  and  of 
infant  baptism  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  in  the 
same  place,  the  morning  preacher  being  specially  requested 
not  to  plead  for  his  vieivs  of  baptism,  by  a  non-compliance 
loith  which  the  Pedobaptist  members  were  greatly  offended! 
These  are  indications  (and  others  might  be  enumerated) 
sufficiently  clear  and  strong  of  the  tendency  of  mixed  com- 
munion."* This  is  a  sad  state  of  things  in  the  Baptist 
Church  in  England.  Mr.  Fuller  proceeds : — "  One  porten- 
tous result  of  the  proposed  innovation,  conceded  by  our 
eloquent  opponent  himself,  [Hall,]  ought  never  to  be  for- 
gotten,— the  extinction  of  Baptist  churches!  ^Were  that 
practice  universally  to  prevail,'  he  says,  Hhe  mixture  of 


*  Conversations  on  Strict  and  Mixed  Communion,  Bap.  Library, 

vol.  i.  p.  22.3. 

20* 


234  EMINENT   OPEN-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  in  Christian  societies  would  pro- 
bably ere  long  be  such  that  the  aiipellation  of  Baptist 
mir/ht  be  found  not  so  cqjplicahle  to  churches  as  to  indi- 
viduals,' In  this,  then,  all  parties  are  agreed : — that  the 
tendency  of  mixed  communion  is  to  annihilate  as  such  all 
the  Baptist  churches  in  Christendom^''^  And  Mr.  Puller 
sounds  the  alarm,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Kinghorn  : — "  It 
is  time  for  us,  in  this  state  of  things,  to  act  with  circum- 
spection and  becoming  firmness.  It  is  manifestly  the  duty 
of  the  members  of  our  churches,  and  of  those  who  sustain 
the  office  of  deacons  and  ministers,  to  put  the  question  to 
themselves  and  to  each  other,  Do  tliey  wish  to  promote  the 
dissolution  and  ruin  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  as  suchf 
If  you  do,  Mr.  Hall  tells  you  his  system  will  eff"ect  the 
purpose ;  but,  if  you  do  not,  take  heed  to  your  ways'  "'\ 

Such  are  the  opinions  of  eminent  Baptist  writers,  and 
such  the  tendency  to  open  communion  in  the  Baptist 
Church.  We  shall  close  this  treatise  with  an  appeal  to 
strict-communion  Baptists. 

*  Conversations  on  Strict  and  Mixed  Communion,  Bap.  Library, 
vol.  i.  p.  223. 

f  Ibid.  p.  223. — It  is  generally  known  that  Mr.  Spurgcon,  a  Baptist 
preacber,  wbo  is  attracting  so  much  attention  in  England  and  whose 
sermons  are  extensively  circulated  in  this  country,  is  in  favor  of 
open  communion.  And  we  shall  not  be  surprised  if  ere  long,  both  in 
England  and  America,  other  gifted  sons  of  the  Baptist  Church  shall 
exert  their  talents  and  influence  on  the  side  of  the  free  and  open  com- 
munion of  the  gospel. 


APPEAL   TO    STRICT-COMMUNION   BAPTISTS.  235 


CHAPTER  XVL 

APPEAL    TO    STRICT-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 

Ah  !  some  of  you  who  kneel  at  the  communion-table 
never  would  have  knelt  there,  perhaps,  had  not  those  whom 
you  exclude  called  you  to  Christ.  And  some  of  you  who 
shut  yourselves  up  in  God's  temple,  under  the  vain  pretence 
of  protecting  the  honor  of  the  temple,  never,  perhaps,  would 
have  passed  its  blessed  threshold,  had  not  those  on  whom 
you  close  and  lock  the  doors  led  you  to  the  portals  of  mercy 
and  pardon.  And  some  of  you  who  make  baptism  an  in- 
dispensable prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper  never,  perhaps, 
would  have  obtained  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  had 
not  those  whom  you  disown  and  renounce  as  disqualified 
for  the  communion  taken  you  by  the  hand  and  tenderly 
led  you  to  the  holy  fountain.  And  some  of  you  who  make 
membership  in  ;i/oui'  church  an  indispensable  condition  to 
participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper  never,  perhaps,  would 
have  been  united  with  Christ's  visible  and  invisible  church, 
had  not  some  of  those  whom  you  repudiate  as  ''disobedient 
children  of  God''  recovered  you  from  rebellion  and  brought 
you  back,  no  longer  ''strangers  and  aliens  from  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel."  And  some  of  you  who  have  "gone 
down  into  the  water"  would  have  gone  down  to  hell,  per- 
haps, had  not  some  who  know  no  other  baptism  but  sprink- 
ling or  pouring  taught  you,  exhorted  you,  prayed  for  you, 
wept  over  your  follies,  and  rejoiced  in  your  forgiveness. 
And  some  of  you  who,  in  the  way  to  heaven,  rejoice  around 
your  own  altars,  never  would  have  found  that  blessed  way, 


236  APPEAL    TO    STRICT-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS. 


perhaps,  had  not  some  of  those  with  whom  you  would  think 
it  a  reproach  and  a  dishonor  to  be  found  at  the  Lord's  table 
introduced  you  into  the  way  at  the  altar  of  penitence,  par- 
don, and  joy  in  their  own  churches, — from  which  you  retired 
happy,  never,  never  to  return.  And  some  of  you  whose 
children,  parents,  wives,  husbands,  and  friends,  as  well  as 
yourselves,  have  been  forgiven,  and  are  on  your  way  to 
heaven,  and  enjoy  blissful  hopes  of  being  saved  forever, 
and  often  express  your  gratitude  and  joy  in  the  celebration 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  never,  perhaps,  would  have  been 
saved,  nor  found  the  way  to  heaven,  nor  enjoyed  a  blissful 
hope  of  being  saved  forever,  nor  known  any  gratitude  or 
ioy  in  the  service  of  God^^  nor  enjoyed  a  single  privilege  of 
communion,  and  life  would  have  been  desolation,  and  time 
a  desert,  and  death  despair,  had  not  those  whom  you  now 
regard  as  'disobedient  and  rebellious"  found  you  miserable, 
lost,  bruised,  and  dead,  and  tenderly  and  affectionately  con- 
ducted you  to  Christ. 

You  concede  that  those  whom  you  exclude  from  com- 
munion have  faith ;  and  a  moment's  consideration  will  prove 
that  the  exclusion  is  wrong.  What  is  this  faith  ?  It  is  the 
condition  of  salvation;  it  is  the  source  of  devotion;  it  is  the 
internal  spring  of  external  obedience  and  activity;  it  is  the 
principle  of  promptitude  and  energy  in  submitting  to  the 
precepts  of  religion,  and  develops  itself  in  exertions  in  every 
cause  connected  with  the  will  of  Grod;  it  is  a  persuasion 
that  resolves  every  thing  into  the  authority  of  the  Bible  and 
the  glory  of  God.  Have  not,  then,  those  whom  you  exclude 
a  right  to  communion  ? 

You  concede  that  they  have  the  substance  signified  by 
baptism,  and  yet  for  want  of  the  sign  deny  them  admission 
to  the  Lord's  table.  Had  they  the  sign  and  not  the  sub- 
stance, you  would  not  admit  them.  Therefore,  do  you  not 
give  more  importance  to  the  sign  than  to  the  substance  ? — 


APPEAL   TO    STRICT-COMMUNION    BAPTISTS.  237 


more  importance  to  baptism  than  to  regeneration?  Tlie 
substance  of  the  sacrament  remains,  though  the  form  has 
never  been  administered  ;  and,  if  administered,  it  wastes  and 
passes  away.  It  is  the  substance,  then,  that  is  essential ; 
and,  therefore,  all  that  should  be  required  by  any  evangelical 
church  in  order  to  communion  is  the  possession  of  the  sub- 
stance signified  by  baptism,  no  matter  by  what  mode  signi- 
fied, as  in  the  case  of  pious  Pedobaptists,  or  whether  it  be 
conscientiously  omitted  altogether,  as  in  the  case  of  pious 
Quakers.  Besides,  you  take  for  granted  that  immersion 
was  the  only  apostolic  mode  of  baptism.  But  this  is  not  so 
certain  as  the  being  of  Grod,  or  as  the  obligation  of  faith,  or 
as  the  piety  of  those  whom  you  exclude  from  communion. 
Mr.  Hall  candidly  admits,  "  The  evidence  by  which  our  views 
are  supported,  though  sulB&cient  for  every  practical  purpose, 
is  decidedly  inferior  to  that  which  accompanied  their  first 
promulgation  :  the  iitmost  that  ice  can  pretend  to  is  a  very 
high  prohahilit//."* 

Mr.  Booth,  a  very  high  authority  with  you,  observes, 
^'  It  is  not  every  one  that  is  received  of  Jesus  who  is  entitled 
to  communion  at  his  table,  but  such,  and  only  such,  as  revere 
his  authority,  submit  to  his  ordinances,  and  obey  the  laws 
of  his  house."  Can  any  man  or  church  fear  offending 
Christ  who  receives  to  communion  those  whom  he  has 
received  ?  Christ  cannot  be  oifended  with  those  who  make 
him  their  example.  What  should  those  expect  who  resist 
the  authority  of  his  example  ? 

May  time  soon  destroy  all  local  prejudices  and  party 
conflicts  about  matters  not  essential  to  salvation,  and 
religion  advance  her  original  and  inalienable  rights  and 
privileges  by  the  cordial  reciprocity  of  all  Christians  in 
sacramental  communion  and  harmony  in  holy  zeal ! 

*•  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  215. 


;  •;•■•.;-•  "  ■>  .■ 


